Werewolf LXXII: Chess (Checkmate!)

[Passacaglia]

Your team is in its formation. King and Queen in the middle, Rooks at the edge of the battlefield, Knights and Bishops primed for battle, and Pawns ready to charge ahead. The terrain has been divided into 64 squares, arranged in 8 rows and 8 columns. Can you and your teammates dominate the other team and kill its King, or will you succumb to the wolves determined to wreak chaos? This game assigns a chess piece to each player, and puts you in your spot on the chess board. If you don't know how to play Chess, that's okay -- I figure the game will play out more like some kind of battle tactics, rather than Chess.

Here are your players:


King
You are the leader of your team, and the prime target of your enemies. Your opponents win by killing you. You cannot be lynched or killed by wolves. You must submit a name to me via PM -- that person will be lynched instead of you, if you're a leading vote-getter. This name can be changed at any time. If the person you submit is the other King, then the name that the OTHER king submits will be lynched. If both kings submit each other's names, then no one will be lynched as a result of voting for the King. The King's color will not be revealed in this process. On the board, you may move one space in any direction. You can see up to three spaces away from you. You may communicate via PM with your Queen.



Queen
You are the King's right (or left) hand...person. You are the most powerful piece on your team, and responsible for the ultimate defense of the significantly weaker and slower King. On the board, you may move as many spaces as you like in any direction. You can see up to three spaces away from you. You may communicate via PM with your King.



Rook
Strong and stout, you provide defense for the lesser pieces and Pawns. You may choose to protect one person each turn. For each color, one Rook will be able to protect against an attack on the board, and one Rook will be able to protect against a wolf attack. Neither of you will be able to protect a King or Queen. Neither of you will learn whether or not you prevented an attack. On the board, you may move as many spaces as you like, horizontally or vertically. You can see up to two spaces away from you. You may communicate via PM with the other Rook of your color.



Bishop
You have studied long and hard to learn the true nature of evil. You may choose to examine one person each turn, and find out if they are on the same team as you. On the board, you may move as many spaces as you like, in any diagonal direction. You can see up to two spaces away from you. You may communicate via PM with the other Bishop of your color.



Knight
You have trained all your life to fight the evil monsters known as werewolves, and learned in the code of chivalry enough to recognize a werewolf, should you come across one. You may choose to examine one player each turn, and found out if that player is a werewolf -- however, that player's piece (or one of his pieces) must be within your visible area on the board at some point in the night (if that player was not in that area, you will be told that the player was not near you that night). On the board, you may move two spaces in one horizontal or vertical direction and one space in the other direction, and you may "jump" over any pieces between you and your destination. You can see one space away from you, plus anywhere you would be eligible to move.. You may communicate via PM with the other Knight of your color.



Pawn
You are seen as the least important of your team, but you can be quite useful. Starting Night 4, you can learn the location on the board of one player (this will be their location as of the end of the night). If you end up controlling more than one Pawn (in the very likely event that there are less than 32 players in the game), your vote will count once for each Pawn you control (this will not be revealed as long as you're alive). On the board, you may move either one or two spaces forward on Night 1. On Night 2 and after, you move either move on space forward but if that space is occupied by a piece of either color you will not move at all, or attempt to capture to your right, which will capture a piece a space ahead and to the right if one exists but cause you to not move at all if that spot is empty, or attempt to capture to your left, which will capture a piece a space ahead and to the left if an opposing piece is there but cause you to not move at all if that spot is empty or the piece in it is friendly or protected. Each Pawn can see one space away, but only after it has moved. You may communicate via PM with the other Pawns of your color. If you reach the last row, you will be promoted to a piece of your choosing (Queen, Rook, Bishop, or Knight). When that happens, you will take on the powers of that piece (and lose your old Pawn powers), and be able to communicate with them (but not your old Pawn buddies).



Wolves
Though you are a member of your team, you have different victory conditions. While the two teams are concerned with killing the enemy King, your goal is to kill all non-wolves, leaving just yourselves and the two Kings. A wolf may not be a King. Each night you may kill one player. You may not kill a King, but if you attempt to kill a King before he has been outed through the process of being a top vote-getter (or if it happened at the end of the day before your night kill), then you get two kill attempts the next night. The wolves will not be able to convert anyone to their team -- there is no mechanism where someone would become a wolf after the game has started. You may communicate via PM with the other wolves.


A picture of the board as it looks at the beginning of the game is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess#Setup. The Kings are at E1 and E8, the Queens are at D1 and D8, the Rooks are at A1, A8, H1, and H8, the Bishops are at C1, F1, C8, and F8, the Knights are at B1, G1, B8, and G8, and the Pawns are all over rows 2 and 7. However, only the Bishops, Kings, and Queens will know what color they are. Rooks, Knights, and Pawns will be told they're White, and the board will appear to them as if they're White, regardless of what color they really are.

A good pictorial description of the way each piece moves can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess#Moves.


Each day, you must do these things:

1. Vote (if you don't vote, you will not be able to do anything during that night phase)
2. Submit a night action if you have one
3. Submit a move on the board
4. Submit a "time" for the move

Explanations follow.

1. Vote

Each day, you must vote for a player to be removed from the game. You may vote "No Lynch" any day, and if that option has more votes than any other option, no pieces will be removed from the game. Ties will result in all the people tied being removed from the game (except for the Kings, of course). Votes must be in bold and on their own line. I will not remind people to put votes on their own line, either -- I simply won't count it.


2. Submit a night action

This is a 24-hour deadline, with a deadline at 3 PM Eastern, so night actions must be submitted during the day. Rooks, Bishops, and Knights have a night action every night. Pawns have a night action every night starting Night 4. Kings must submit a name at some point Day 1, but don't have to change it each day if they don't want to. Wolves must submit the name of the person they wish to chew up and spit out.


3. Submit a move on the board

I guess this one is optional, really. You don't have to move if you don't want to. I'll be using the algebraic chess notation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_chess_notation) for coordinates, but cardinal directions (White will be on the South end of the board, "facing" North, and Black will be on the North end of the board, "facing" South) for players to tell me which direction they want to go. Combining these two notations, Cell A1 is Southwest, A8 is Northwest, H1 is Southeast, and H8 is Northwest. If the moves are complicated, please feel free to ask questions, and talk with people in your group for ideas!

Queens: Tell me which direction you would like to move (North, South, East, West, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, or Southwest), and how many spaces you want to travel, from 1 to 8. You will stop when you reach your desired number of spaces. If an opposing piece is in the way, you will capture that piece and stop there -- that piece will be removed from the game. If a friendly or protected piece is in the way, you will stop right before that piece.

Rooks: Tell me which direction you would like to move (North, South, East, West), and how many spaces you want to travel, from 1 to 8. You will stop when you reach your desired number of spaces. If an opposing piece is in the way, you will capture that piece and stop there -- that piece will be removed from the game. If a friendly or protected piece is in the way, you will stop right before that piece.

Bishops: Tell me which direction you would like to move (Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, or Southwest), and how many spaces you want to travel, from 1 to 8. You will stop when you reach your desired number of spaces. If an opposing piece is in the way, you will capture that piece and stop there -- that piece will be removed from the game. If a friendly or protected piece is in the way, you will stop right before that piece.

Kings: Tell me which direction you would like to move (North, South, East, West, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, or Southwest). If an opposing piece is in that spot, you will capture that piece -- that piece will be removed from the game. If a friendly or protected piece is in that spot, you will not move. If it is easier, you can also use the algebraic chess notation to tell me which spot you want to move to.

Knights: Tell me where you want to move to, within the guidelines of your move description, using the algebraic chess notation. If an opposing piece is in that spot, you will capture that piece -- that piece will be removed from the game. If a friendly or protected piece is in that spot, you will not move.

Pawns: On Night 1, you can either move two spaces forward, move one space forward, or not move. On Night 2 or later, you can not move, move one space forward, or "attempt to capture" to your right or left. Keep in mind that if you're a Black Pawn, you'll be facing South (or down), so the left-right might get confusing. But when you say left or right, I'm going to interpret it as left or right from your perspective ON THE BOARD. If it's easier, you can give your attempt to capture in cardinal directions -- Northeast or Northwest for White Pawns, and Southeast or Southwest for Black Pawns.


4. Submit a "time" for the move

With your move, you must submit a number from 1-8, telling me how early or late in the night you want to make your move. 1 is the earliest, 8 is the latest. If no time is submitted, I'll place the move at time 4.5, right in the middle. Moves done at the same time will be simultaneous. That means that if two pieces move into the same spot at the same time, neither will be able to occupy it, and if one piece is trying to capture another and at the same time, that piece is moving away, the capture will not take place. The wolves must also submit a time that their kill occurs.


After each night phase is completed, I will:

1. Post a report of what pieces were captured, and what players were eaten by wolves.
2. Send a PM with scan results for Bishops and Knights (and Pawns as of Night 3).
3. Send a PM informing you where on the board you are, and which pieces are within your visibility. I'm not going to do this for Night 0 -- all the beginning positions are known, and can be seen at the link I provided earlier.


Endgame

The game ends in one of four ways:

1. If the White King dies, Black wins.
2. If the Black King dies, White wins.
3. If only the two Kings and wolves are alive, the Wolves win.
4. If only the two Kings are alive, the game ends in a stalemate.

A note about PMs -- please cc me in all communications. There is no mechanism that allows that PM to be read by anyone else -- I just want to see everyone's thoughts on the game. If it's via PM, you can send it to me. If it's email, you can send it to [email protected]. If it's chat, you don't have to bother, but if you have something interesting cooked up, feel free to let me know!

[Passacaglia]

Players:

1. claphamsa -- Lynched in place of ntndeacon Day 3, Black Bishop, Villager
2. The Jackal -- Lynched Day 7, White Knight, Wolf
3. mccollins -- Killed by Wolves Night 6, White Pawns, Villager
4. Lathum -- Lynched Day 3, Black Bishop, Villager
5. jeheinz72 -- Lynched Day 8, White Rook, Wolf
6. st.cronin -- Killed by Wolves Night 5, White Bishop, Villager
7. Anxiety -- Lynched Day 4, Black Knight, Wolf
8. KWhit -- Killed by Wolves Night 2, Black Pawns, Villager
9. Narcizo -- Lynched Day 8, White Rook, Villager
10. PurdueBrad -- White Pawns, promoted to White Queens, Villager
11. RendeR -- Lynched Day 6, White Bishop, Villager
12. hoopsguy -- Lynched Day 1, Black Rook, Wolf
13. Chief Rum -- Lynched Day 2, Black Queen, Villager
14. oliegirl -- Killed by Wolves Night 7, Black Rook, Villager
15. ntndeacon -- White King
16. path12 -- Killed by Wolves Night 3, White Queen, Villager
17. Barkeep49 -- Killed by Wolves Night 1, White Knight, Villager
18. Sonic Youth -- Lynched Day 5, Black Pawns, Villager
19. Neon_Chaos -- Black King
20. Qwikshot -- Killed by Wolves Night 4, Black Knight, Villager

[Passacaglia]

Significant events:

[claphamsa]

wow! i grew up playing chess... yes I was a nerd, even won a national team title in high school! That beign said im goign on vacation from thursday May 1 thrugh monday May 5....... I gotta play tho!

[The Jackal]

in

[mccollins]

IN!! I just started playing chess again after a couple year hiatus. Fun fun!

[Lathum]

In, how many people will you need?

[Lathum]

dola- I'll try and get Saldana to play, he can be the Queen

[Passacaglia]

In, how many people will you need?

32 would rock. 20 is kind of the minimum I have in mind, where everyone gets to PM with someone else.

[Lathum]

32 would rock. 20 is kind of the minimum I have in mind, where everyone gets to PM with someone else.

hmm, 32 is a severe longshot, 20 may be tough.

[hoopsguy]

24 hour + 3PM deadline = not ideal for me.

Do you have an expected start date?

[Passacaglia]

24 hour + 3PM deadline = not ideal for me.

Do you have an expected start date?

NC would probably know more about that than me. Maybe Wednesday?

[hoopsguy]

OK, just looking to get a sense if it was a mid-week start (right after other game) or looking at the following Monday regardless of end date for Neon's game.

[Passacaglia]

24 hour + 3PM deadline = not ideal for me.

Do you have an expected start date?

By the way, I love how you posted that at 3:06 Eastern. :p

[claphamsa]

I would certainly prefer a monday the 5th start ;) hopefully the villegars can hold out for another week!

[jeheinz72]

I'm all about this. I suck at chess but I like to knock peoples pieces over in fits of complete frustration

In like Ted Ginn.

[st.cronin]

I'll play.

[hoopsguy]

By the way, I love how you posted that at 3:06 Eastern. :p

Heh, all depends on the day and the client I'm visiting. I know that I'm going to have no FOFC access at one of my clients at some point next week ... if it looks like it is going to be a frequent issue during the run-time of this game then I'll be sitting another one out. If not, then I'll play.

[Abe Sargent]

In

[Abe Sargent]

Hold up, I'm in, assuming I can send in conditional orders. I forgot I'm away in Olympia for an interview next Tues Night through Thurs Night.

[Passacaglia]

Heh, all depends on the day and the client I'm visiting. I know that I'm going to have no FOFC access at one of my clients at some point next week ... if it looks like it is going to be a frequent issue during the run-time of this game then I'll be sitting another one out. If not, then I'll play.

Any deadline work better? I'm pretty flexible.

[Passacaglia]

Hold up, I'm in, assuming I can send in conditional orders. I forgot I'm away in Olympia for an interview next Tues Night through Thurs Night.

Whatever crazy conditional order you can think of, I'll do it.

[hoopsguy]

Any deadline work better? I'm pretty flexible.

Evening (9PM EST and later) always works best for me personally, but I'm not trying to rock the boat here. I'm sure the time you have picked works better for others.

[KWhit]

In like Kasparov.

[Narcizo]

A note about PMs -- please cc me in all communications. There is no mechanism that allows that PM to be read by anyone else -- I just want to see everyone's thoughts on the game. If it's via PM, you can send it to me. If it's email, you can send it to [email protected]. If it's chat, you don't have to bother, but if you have something interesting cooked up, feel free to let me know!

Good luck keeping your PM box from overflowing with that one Pass. If 20 people are the minimum and everyone gets to PM someone else, there's the wolves PMing each other and individual orders then there's no way that's going to be viable.

Time constraints over 3/5 of the week mean that I wouldn't really be able to contribute a huge amount in what looks like it could be a complicated game. I'm not really sure I like these extreme theme games either but I'll give this ago and you can add me if you need to make up the numbers. I just won't be able to be very active, particularly if the thread is as big as I suspect it could get.

[Passacaglia]

Good luck keeping your PM box from overflowing with that one Pass. If 20 people are the minimum and everyone gets to PM someone else, there's the wolves PMing each other and individual orders then there's no way that's going to be viable.

Time constraints over 3/5 of the week mean that I wouldn't really be able to contribute a huge amount in what looks like it could be a complicated game. I'm not really sure I like these extreme theme games either but I'll give this ago and you can add me if you need to make up the numbers. I just won't be able to be very active, particularly if the thread is as big as I suspect it could get.

I was able to do it for the BCS game, which had 16 people, and each conference of 4 could PM themselves. I think I'll be all right.

[PurdueBrad]

I don't know crap about Chess, will I be able to get through this? If so, I'm in.

[Passacaglia]

I don't know crap about Chess, will I be able to get through this? If so, I'm in.

I don't think that should be a problem.

[RendeR]

How do we go about getting our PM box inreased in size? who do we ask? I know I kep hitting my limit running my games every time. I just want a bigger PM box =)

[RendeR]

Oh and put me IN, wtf, I'll probably not be around for any deadlines but I can get my input in the night before while at work.

[Passacaglia]

Render has a good point. hoops, is it really a big deal to be around at deadline? I've played in tons of games where I haven't been around at deadline, and still had a great time playing when I was around. People have all sorts of schedules that we accommodate in the game -- being around at deadline is hardly a prerequisite.

[hoopsguy]

Pass, go ahead and sign me up for the game.

In terms of playing the game, as a rule I want to know that I'll have a consistent presence over the lifetime of the game. So if I'm going to be missing days, I won't sign up. If my work commitments are going to keep me away for huge chunks of time, I won't sign up because I don't want to be a slave to the game at home.

Obviously everyone plays a style that gives them a high level of enjoyment. I don't enjoy playing nearly as much when I'm forced into a more passive observer role for large chunks of time. But I'll give it a go this time and see how it works out.

[Passacaglia]

Pass, go ahead and sign me up for the game.

In terms of playing the game, as a rule I want to know that I'll have a consistent presence over the lifetime of the game. So if I'm going to be missing days, I won't sign up. If my work commitments are going to keep me away for huge chunks of time, I won't sign up because I don't want to be a slave to the game at home.

Obviously everyone plays a style that gives them a high level of enjoyment. I don't enjoy playing nearly as much when I'm forced into a more passive observer role for large chunks of time. But I'll give it a go this time and see how it works out.

Sounds good, hoops.

If other people would prefer an evening deadline, I'll definitely do it, since I think this game will work infinitely better with 20+ people. Let me know.

[st.cronin]

I think afternoon deadlines actually generate larger numbers of players, Pass.

[Passacaglia]

I think afternoon deadlines actually generate larger numbers of players, Pass.

You're probably right -- the last afternoon deadline I remember had several people around. I'm just trying to do what I can to get a lot of people in this one.

[Chief Rum]

I think afternoon deadlines==good for East Coasters and people who can post from work. Evening deadlines==better for Left Coasters and people who can only post after work.

That said, I can't pass this one up. ;)

[Chief Rum]

Oh, to be clear, that means I am submitting my name for entry into the game being proffered. Which I would have gone back to edit into the last post. But I am not supposed to do that. So I didn't.

[claphamsa]

adn there is only one coast......

[oliegirl]

Well I am home from our honeymoon, complete with kick ass tan, and am ready for another game. Count me in...I don't know anything about chess though so I may have to ask some relatively stupid questions at some point in the game. Though new hubby does play and he said he'll help me if I need it...

Anyway, I'm in like Bobby Fischer :)

[claphamsa]

your dead?

[oliegirl]

your dead?

LOL, no...he's just the only chess player I could think of off the top of my head :)

[oliegirl]

Dola, I don't even think I knew that Bobby Fischer was dead...I only know his name b/c of the movie from a few years ago, Searching for Bobby Fischer. Told you I didn't know anything about chess...

[Passacaglia]

Dola, I don't even think I knew that Bobby Fischer was dead...I only know his name b/c of the movie from a few years ago, Searching for Bobby Fischer. Told you I didn't know anything about chess...

Good movie. One of the very few where I liked the movie more than the book, I think.

[ntndeacon]

I will be in like Karpov.

[path12]

Sign me up. I'll castle yer rook. Just like the way that sounds.

[ImTheCrew]

in? to late?

[claphamsa]

never too late... unless youhave been mated already, then its to late.

[Passacaglia]

Definitely not too late. I'll send out roles sometime over the weekend, with the first deadline being 3 PM Eastern, Monday, May 6.

[claphamsa]

and ill check once or 2 X on sunday.... and I guarantee a check before i leave... but i wont talk day one.

[KWhit]

never too late... unless youhave been mated already, then its to late.

I haven't been mated in over a month.

:(

[KWhit]

I haven't been mated in over a month.

:(


TMI?

[claphamsa]

wow, that sucks.... :(

[claphamsa]

nah, ur fine.l


just dont rhyme
!


TMI?

[path12]

I haven't been mated in over a month.

:(

Don't look at me.

[Sonic Youth]

Alright, I'll have a go. I don't know how often I'll be in, as next week is two tricky pracs and they need attention.

I'm in.

[KWhit]

I haven't been mated in over a month.


Alright, I'll have a go.

I'm in.


Ok. Thanks.

[Sonic Youth]

Ok. Thanks.
I've got just the outfit for you to wear...

[Neon_Chaos]

In like Eugenio Torre.

[Passacaglia]

My plan is to send out roles Monday morning, and have a long Day 1, with a Day 1 deadline of 3 PM, Tuesday May 6. I'll keep signups open until then.

[Qwikshot]

If there is space, I'm in

[Passacaglia]

If there is space, I'm in

If there is space, I'm in
There is space
--------------
You're in!

[Barkeep49]

Yeah to Qwikshot. I know Pass really wanted 20.

[Passacaglia]

Yeah to Qwikshot. I know Pass really wanted 20.

Yep. 20 means that everyone gets a PM partner -- each side has two rooks, two bishops, two knights, two pawns, and a king and queen. Any additional players just mean that the players controlling pawns won't get as many pawns per player (which I still would love).

[Passacaglia]

I made a few edits to the rules. Bishops now have the power that the Knights had originally (scan someone and find out if they're the same color as you). Knights now have a power similar to what the Bishops had originally (restricted seer), but different restrictions were used. The area that Knights can see on the board was also changed.

Also, this was added:

However, only the Bishops, Kings, and Queens will know what color they are. Rooks, Knights, and Pawns will be told they're White, and the board will appear to them as if they're White, regardless of what color they really are.

Also, the Pawn power of being able to learn a player's location on the board was changed so that it can start being used Night 4, instead of Night 3.

[Passacaglia]

Another small rule change:

Each Pawn can see one space away, but only after it has moved.

[Passacaglia]

This is how the board will look for white pieces, and the Black King, Queen, and Bishop:


Black Rook Black Knight Black Bishop Black Queen Black King Black Bishop Black Knight Black Rook 8
Black Pawn Black Pawn Black Pawn Black Pawn Black Pawn Black Pawn Black Pawn Black Pawn 7
6
5
4
3
White Pawn White Pawn White Pawn White Pawn White Pawn White Pawn White Pawn White Pawn 2
White Rook White Knight White Bishop White Queen White King White Bishop White Knight White Rook 1
A B C D E F G H

[Passacaglia]

For Black Pawns, Black Knights, and Black Rooks, I'm going to use a separate board that makes it look like they're white. Since Pawns, Knights, and Rooks won't know what color they are, I'm manipulating it a little bit so that both colors think they are white -- for example, the Black Knight who starts in cell G8 will think he starts in cell G1, and the Black Pawn who starts in C7 will think he starts in C2. This might get confusing as players try to communicate towards endgame, so I thought I'd get that out there now.

[Schmidty]

Considering the fact that I am a very, very good chess player (sorry humility), I should probably sign up....but I need to get my stuff together for my game. Even though it'll be 100% simpler than this one.

[ntndeacon]

That could screw up the rooks trying to go towards his own end and ending up at the other side.

[Neon_Chaos]

So... what's the time table on this game starting?

[Narcizo]

That could screw up the rooks trying to go towards his own end and ending up at the other side.

Not if Pass reverses the orders coming in from the black pieces (which I presume he will be doing).

[Narcizo]

So... what's the time table on this game starting?

Pass said that he'd be sending out roles Monday morning EST (so Monday night in your case, I guess) with the first day ending Tuesday.

[ImTheCrew]

hey guys sorry, but im not going to be able to play. My schealdue is going to be to hard to play i have school from 7am-2:30pm then work from 3-9 this week, sorry for the inconvenience

[Passacaglia]

Not if Pass reverses the orders coming in from the black pieces (which I presume he will be doing).

I'm not sure I understand the comment or the reply -- can you guys clarify?

[Passacaglia]

Pass said that he'd be sending out roles Monday morning EST (so Monday night in your case, I guess) with the first day ending Tuesday.

Right. I'm sending out roles in about 2 hours, first deadline in 31 hours.

[Passacaglia]

hey guys sorry, but im not going to be able to play. My schealdue is going to be to hard to play i have school from 7am-2:30pm then work from 3-9 this week, sorry for the inconvenience

No problem, man! Sorry you can't make it!

[Narcizo]

I'm not sure I understand the comment or the reply -- can you guys clarify?

Say the black rook believes that he is white and currently on A5 and wants to move to A1. He might say that he wants to move "south" 4 spaces or something. You'd see that he's actually on A4 and then move him "north" 4 spaces so he arrives at A8.

I think.

Thinking about it the main problem is that if he thinks he's white then he's going to have to see the same opposite effect on all pieces around him. So if he sees a black knight next to him he will have to be told that it's a white knight, so he doesn't attempt to capture it. Or if a white pawn is in a position where it could capture him he'll have to be told that it's a black pawn so he knows he needs to try and move away.

[Passacaglia]

Say the black rook believes that he is white and currently on A5 and wants to move to A1. He might say that he wants to move "south" 4 spaces or something. You'd see that he's actually on A4 and then move him "north" 4 spaces so he arrives at A8.

I think.

Thinking about it the main problem is that if he thinks he's white then he's going to have to see the same opposite effect on all pieces around him. So if he sees a black knight next to him he will have to be told that it's a white knight, so he doesn't attempt to capture it. Or if a white pawn is in a position where it could capture him he'll have to be told that it's a black pawn so he knows he needs to try and move away.

Right. Part of thinking you're white means that you'll think the other pieces are black. My plan is actually to use "friendly" and "enemy" for the people that don't know what color they are.

[Alan T]

I'll play if you need someone to fill in Imthecrew's spot to make it an even 20. Even though my wife is out of town, and I'm spending alot of time working this week, so won't be as active as normal.

[Alan T]

Dola... err something weird change with the boards? I don't see how many Private messages I have any longer. It only tells me when I last visited.

[Alan T]

Dola... err something weird change with the boards? I don't see how many Private messages I have any longer. It only tells me when I last visited.

Ahh it is my Firefox noscript extention blocking it. Guess they changed how that part of the board works for some reason!


Anyhows, I'll play if you need a 20th Pass

[Neon_Chaos]

Hmmm. I can see mine.

[Barkeep49]

Ahh it is my Firefox noscript extention blocking it. Guess they changed how that part of the board works for some reason!


Anyhows, I'll play if you need a 20th Pass
Yeah there's a bit of a script now that allows you go directly to a folder or send a new message without going through the Inbox first.

[claphamsa]

Im gonna be super quiet the first day, or first 8 or so hours, Ill be heading home soon, and wont check back till 9PM EST or so, and timmmorow will be super busy at work (just back from vacation) so im not sneaking by UTR :) and ill be sure to get action sin.

[Passacaglia]

Starting to send out PMs. Please wait until I post that I'm done to start chatting. Thanks.

[Passacaglia]

The following PMs have been sent out:

X is the White King, in spot E1, and Y is the White Queen, in spot D1.


X is in spot A1, and can prevent attacks made by wolves. Y is in spot H1, and can prevent attacks on the board.


X is in cell B1, and can see a Friendly Rook in cell A1, a Friendly Bishop in spot C1, Friendly Pawns in spots A2, B2, C2 and D2. Cells A3 and C3 are empty. During this turn, you may move to cell A3, C3, or D2.

Y is in cell G1, and can see a Friendly Rook in cell H1, a Friendly Bishop in spot F1, Friendly Pawns in spots E2, F2, G2 and H2. Cells F3 and H3 are empty. During this turn, you may move to cell F3, H3, or E2.


You are the White Bishops. X is in spot C1, and Y is in spot F1.


X controls the Pawns in cells A2, C2, E2, and G2. Y controls the Pawns in cells B2, D2, F2, and H2.


X controls the Pawns in cells A2, C2, E2, and G2. Y controls the Pawns in cells B2, D2, F2, and H2.


You are the Black Bishops. X is in spot C8, and Y is in spot F8.


X is in cell B1, and can see a Friendly Rook in cell A1, a Friendly Bishop in spot C1, Friendly Pawns in spots A2, B2, C2 and D2. Cells A3 and C3 are empty. During this turn, you may move to cell A3, C3, or D2.

Y is in cell G1, and can see a Friendly Rook in cell H1, a Friendly Bishop in spot F1, Friendly Pawns in spots E2, F2, G2 and H2. Cells F3 and H3 are empty. During this turn, you may move to cell F3, H3, or E2.


X is in spot A1, and can prevent attacks on the board. Y is in spot H1, and can prevent attacks made by wolves.


X is the Black King, in spot E8, and Y is the Black Queen, in spot D8.


You guys are also wolves. Good luck.


Begin play!

[hoopsguy]

OK, got my PM - it is one of the ones listed above (duh).

Time to re-read the rules and create out a homemade map to see if I can get a little better feel for my options.

[st.cronin]

I'm not sure how Team White and Team Black are supposed to coordinate their moves. Is there something obvious I'm missing?

[KWhit]

I'm not sure I understand why some players don't know what team they're on.

[hoopsguy]

Cronin, my impression is that the leaders of the teams (the ones who actually know whether they are white or black) get to make risk/reward decisions about communicating within the thread. Clearly if they identify themselves as one color then they alienate several others (four players to start, 50% of the other players if there is total disclosure).

I do'nt know what color I am - given that this yields information about what my role would be, you (the collective you, not Cronin specifically) can either take that statement at face value or assume I'm bluffing.

[hoopsguy]

I'm not sure I understand why some players don't know what team they're on.

From the rules:
However, only the Bishops, Kings, and Queens will know what color they are. Rooks, Knights, and Pawns will be told they're White, and the board will appear to them as if they're White, regardless of what color they really are.

[Passacaglia]

FYI, I don't have AIM at work. I may be logged on, but that's because lurker is using it at home while she studies. You can reach me with questions via PM or google talk (agage1 AT gmail DOT com). Or just email me.

[KWhit]

From the rules:

I know it's in the rules. I'm saying that I don't understand why it's done like that. It seems to just make things unnecessarily complex.

[Narcizo]

I've thought about this and I would imagine it's to prevent mass reveals. Say we lynch a white piece and then another white piece is night killed. What's to prevent the black pieces all outing themselves and targeting the other white pieces for a lynch?

[hoopsguy]

Yep, if we all know what color we are then it gets pretty hard to agree on kills when the game is both "black vs white" and "villager vs wolf".

[hoopsguy]

So how does "line of sight" work in this game? For example, I have a certain amount of distance that I can see - but the PM doesn't include information about who is in the spaces around me.

[jeheinz72]

Hey folks checking in.

I really need to re-read the rules though.

[RendeR]

PM received, will re-read the rules and post more once I get to work later on.

[RendeR]

So how does "line of sight" work in this game? For example, I have a certain amount of distance that I can see - but the PM doesn't include information about who is in the spaces around me.


As I recall Pass said that you will see whatever you can see 'AFTER" you move. So tostart the game you start blind and must move to gain information.

[Passacaglia]

Small correction to post 86. My PM to the rooks said that one of them can prevent attacks against wolves. Obviously, I meant they can prevent attacks made by wolves.

[Passacaglia]

As I recall Pass said that you will see whatever you can see 'AFTER" you move. So tostart the game you start blind and must move to gain information.

Sort of. I just said I wasn't going to give out that information for "Night Zero" because I provided a link of how the Chess Board looks when a game starts. I also put it in code somewhere on the second page. Since you know what spot you're in, you know what's around you.

[Narcizo]

So how does "line of sight" work in this game? For example, I have a certain amount of distance that I can see - but the PM doesn't include information about who is in the spaces around me.

I'd imagine you don't get info now because it's a standard chess set-up at this stage so there's no need to be given that info.

[KWhit]

I've thought about this and I would imagine it's to prevent mass reveals. Say we lynch a white piece and then another white piece is night killed. What's to prevent the black pieces all outing themselves and targeting the other white pieces for a lynch?

That makes sense.

[The Jackal]

Checking in, I too need to refresh myself with the rules before I have any idea what I'm doin.

[Neon_Chaos]

Checking in. This is going to be either really great, or really confusing. :)

[hoopsguy]

Welcome to a Passacaglia game, Neon :) I'm hoping it turns out great.

[Passacaglia]

Welcome to a Passacaglia game, Neon :) I'm hoping it turns out great.

hahaha :p

[Neon_Chaos]

Never really realized that underneath the docile exterior he showed at BWW, there lies the brains of a mad scientist.

[PurdueBrad]

Checking in...and off to wikipedia to read up about my piece.

[Abe Sargent]

Hello my friends, I am checking in, and hoping my team doesn't get checked out.

[path12]

Clueless piece checking in. I should get a better sense of the rules before saying much, which means you likely won't hear much from me until later today/evening.

[oliegirl]

Checking in, and will be printing out a make-shift chess board soon. Like I said before, I have no chess knowledge, so hopefully I'm not in too far over my head...

[Barkeep49]

Pass:

The person who I'm PM'ing with is in on my side (black/white) but not necessarily on my side for villagers/wolves, correct?

[Passacaglia]

Pass:

The person who I'm PM'ing with is in on my side (black/white) but not necessarily on my side for villagers/wolves, correct?

Correct.

[hoopsguy]

It looks like so far this game people are taking a cautious approach to revealing Black/White info - which is fine by me. However, that does leave us with a little less to talk about in the thread on Day 1.

So here are a couple of things that I think make some sense to discuss:
1. # of wolves: 20 players, no conversion option. I'm guessing that leaves 4-5 wolves.

2. Vote strategy: everyone knows someone (right?) on their Black/White team so I would expect people to instinctively protect their counterpart. However, getting a group of 2-4 players in a close vote is probably the way to go (ex - Pass as wolf last game flushed out the wolves on votes early, even if it wasn't properly identified and acted upon)

3. Thoughts on identifying your own team and teammates - I'm hoping that we'll be able to do this as we start moving about the board but I'm not exactly sure how that will work for those of us that are not bishops.

[st.cronin]

I'm not sure I see any upside at all to revealing black/white allegiance, hoops.

[Narcizo]

Ok. I've been thinking about the game today and I think I have a plan people might want to think about.

This game is dramatically different from any other I've played in as there are two villager factions. In my opinion that fact alone hugely benefits the wolves. Then there's the fact that the wolves have access to a lot more information in a game where information is key. More so, even, than usual. Presuming, for argument's sake that there are four wolves, if they spread out, they will be able to "see" pretty much the entire board, while we can only see 2-3 squares away (and, if we trust our PM partners, 2-3 squares from them). Then you add in the fact that they might also got access to some information from their PM partners and the wolves have got a pretty stacked hand in terms of chessboard strategy. They can co-ordinate their moves (and potentially those of their PM partners) to achieve maximum destruction while safeguarding the kings. It seems logical to me that trying to force the issue is going to result in a lot of dead villagers leaving the wolves in a position of superiority that is only going to get greater.

I suggest we take that advantage out of their hands by enforcing a "nuetral" zone across the middle two rows of the board. (Is it rows or columns? I think rows). Rather than blindly blundering around trying to capture opponents pieces we stick to the first three rows and concentrate on trying to weed out the wolves using traditional methods.
People might be thinking that this is some sort of ploy to get my team ahead but I don't really see how it could be. Teams can still maneuvre in their first three rows. All I'm trying to do is prevent the wolves getting more kills by steering events on the board.

Now the counter-argument is that if both sides go all out storming the opponents' king then it takes the initiative out of the hands of the wolves and could finish the game quickly. While this had merit I still feel that all that such a strategy (which, by nature, can't be organised) is a lot of dead pieces and the king not being overly threatened. Particularly as the wolves will be doing their best to make sure that neither side hits the king.

Another thing - knights can only scan for wolves within one square or a legal move away. If we aim to keep pieces grouped then I think there's more of a chance of them hitting a wolf with their seer scan. (although, to be honest, the chances aren't all that great anyway).

Thoughts?

[st.cronin]

Hm, well, I wasn't planning on moving anyway, so I'm ok with that.

[hoopsguy]

I'm not sure I see any upside at all to revealing black/white allegiance, hoops.

Each player should at the very least strive to collect this information to help them make more informed decisions with votes and moves.

In terms of publicly sharing the information, I don't know that I consider revealing it to be optimal strategy. Not at this stage, anyway, where the two sides should be evenly matched.

[jeheinz72]

I'm not sure how I feel about Narc's theory.

I mean on one hand yes, we'll stop from killing each other, ergo slowing down the wolves. That I like.

But on the other hand we'll lose someone each night to the wolves, correct? What's to say I'm not going to just watch and see the wolves pick off my team quickly? Heck, I don't even know who is on my team save the one person I can PM, so I won't even know if it's going well or not. Compound this by it seeming like an un-fun way to play (ala the Cruise if we just never voted anyone over the threshold).

[Narcizo]

Each player should at the very least strive to collect this information to help them make more informed decisions with votes and moves.

In terms of publicly sharing the information, I don't know that I consider revealing it to be optimal strategy. Not at this stage, anyway, where the two sides should be evenly matched.

Well, if we wanted to go down that route then now would probably be the optimal time, before one side gets the upper hand and can control the vote to vote off the other side.

I don't know really. In one way it's good because the wolves are going to have a lot of information that we don't have, so any sharing of information is likely to cut down on the (currently substantial) information difference. But revealing your colour is going to reveal to everyone that you are a king, queen or bishop (as they're the only ones to know it at the moment). Which we might not really want to do, as it will help the wolves further narrow down who the rooks and knights are.

On the other hand, if we're thinking 4 wolves (which I think sounds reasonable) then there's a good chance that they already know 8 roles (unless they got a paired couple). Leaving only 12 left for them to wonder about. That's a pretty big advantage. But in that case maybe we should be revealing what piece we are but not what colour (which is immaterial in the hunt to catch wolves). My instincts tell me that a mass reveal isn't really going to help in this case though, although I definitely don't think it should be discounted out of hand.

[jeheinz72]

Revealing the piece? Isn't that like inviting the wolves to snipe our Seers (the knights)?

[hoopsguy]

Narc, I like a lot of aspects of your plan. But the one piece that troubles me a little bit is that we are potentially limiting our ability to find the wolves. There are four knights that can issue scans - however, they'll end up being restricted (along with the wolves on their team) to a small number of spots if we enforce the "3 row" limit. I think the plan you are outlining puts an even bigger target on them as early wolf kills.

Let's make a couple of assumptions:
- two wolves per side (I like the symmetry to this if I'm designing the game)
- two knights per side who need to be within one space of a wolf to get a scan
- the wolves kill a knight during their first action
- now we have one knight who is able to catch the wolves on that side (assuming that there are no wolves among the knights in the first place)

This plan is a disaster if there is one wolf among the two knights on a side - particularly if the rook isn't able to pull off a protect. I think there is an element of "worst case" in the scenario I'm painting, but I would rather give my wolf-hunting roles the option to move about the board for maximum flexibility rather than tying them down to a small area.

[st.cronin]

Heinz - Narc is assuming that its possible that one of the wolves IS a knight, meaning the wolves already know one of the knights (also meaning we start one knight down). Personally I think its unlikely that a wolf would be paired with a non-wolf - I think there are 4 wolves, 2 pairs.

[hoopsguy]

Also, if you are the pawn in D2 please move to give the knights three options for their initial move. And put your action in early in order to make sure you don't block (1 is the earliest) the knights action.

[hoopsguy]

Heinz - Narc is assuming that its possible that one of the wolves IS a knight, meaning the wolves already know one of the knights (also meaning we start one knight down). Personally I think its unlikely that a wolf would be paired with a non-wolf - I think there are 4 wolves, 2 pairs.

If wolves are paired together, along with wolves being knights (I think this is pretty unlikely) then Narcizo's plan gets worse because 50% of the board isn't going to yield a wolf.

I guess you could take the approach that it is better if you are on that side, as the chance of catching a wolf is much higher on the other side and votes would go to them - weakening their team relative to your own. But I would prefer that we have our wolf-hunters actively engaged as much as possible. That gives the best chance for a dual win - both as a color and as a villager.

[Neon_Chaos]

This game is useless without pictures.

http://www.classicamiga.com/images/stories/jreviews/games/B/battlechess_knightvsbishop.PNG

[Narcizo]

Heinz - Narc is assuming that its possible that one of the wolves IS a knight, meaning the wolves already know one of the knights (also meaning we start one knight down). Personally I think its unlikely that a wolf would be paired with a non-wolf - I think there are 4 wolves, 2 pairs.

I don't know about that. That could mean that the wolves have 2 knights then. I've PMed Pass about the selection criteria for the wolves, see if he has any response.

Hoops. I don't see how keeping pieces contained in a narrow area limits their ability to scan. Quite the opposite in fact. And I think it's pretty improbable to expect the knights to go wandering off to the other side of the board on a scan quest and expect them to survive. The best chance of keeping knights alive if for them to hang around on their side of the board. And then the best way for them to get useful scans is to keep as many pieces as possible around the knights. Which is what my plan does.

[jeheinz72]

Heinz - Narc is assuming that its possible that one of the wolves IS a knight, meaning the wolves already know one of the knights (also meaning we start one knight down). Personally I think its unlikely that a wolf would be paired with a non-wolf - I think there are 4 wolves, 2 pairs.

Yeah I'd say it is likely we're at least one knight down (via a pair, or worse yet a pair of knights)

[hoopsguy]

Narc, here is how I see the consequences of your plan:
1. I think your plan puts a bigger bullseye on the knights.
2. As a result, it begins to force the hand of the rooks on their protection orders.
3. Which in turn allows the wolves to go elsewhere if they have a knight (or two) on one side of the board.

Maybe the other two already happen on the first turn or two. But after that the knights will have had the ability to make their move across the board if they are interested in doing so. I'm generally against restricting the options of the knights ... if you take them out of the mix then I'm fine with the remainder of your plan.

I would also be amiable to a proposal suggesting that both sides agree not to deliberately take out a knight with a "chess move".

[Narcizo]

Pass's response seems to suggest that it was "controlled random". Ie he selected randomly from 1-18 (excluding the kings) but binned a result if it didn't meet criteria he had already set up. That suggests to me that there can be (and probably are) wolf/non-wolf pairings and, maybe, that there isn't necessary an even split of wolves on the sides (although I suspect there will be at least one on each side).

That means people need to think carefully about what they share with their partners.

[Abe Sargent]

Ok. I've been thinking about the game today and I think I have a plan people might want to think about.

This game is dramatically different from any other I've played in as there are two villager factions. In my opinion that fact alone hugely benefits the wolves. Then there's the fact that the wolves have access to a lot more information in a game where information is key. More so, even, than usual. Presuming, for argument's sake that there are four wolves, if they spread out, they will be able to "see" pretty much the entire board, while we can only see 2-3 squares away (and, if we trust our PM partners, 2-3 squares from them). Then you add in the fact that they might also got access to some information from their PM partners and the wolves have got a pretty stacked hand in terms of chessboard strategy. They can co-ordinate their moves (and potentially those of their PM partners) to achieve maximum destruction while safeguarding the kings. It seems logical to me that trying to force the issue is going to result in a lot of dead villagers leaving the wolves in a position of superiority that is only going to get greater.

I suggest we take that advantage out of their hands by enforcing a "nuetral" zone across the middle two rows of the board. (Is it rows or columns? I think rows). Rather than blindly blundering around trying to capture opponents pieces we stick to the first three rows and concentrate on trying to weed out the wolves using traditional methods.
People might be thinking that this is some sort of ploy to get my team ahead but I don't really see how it could be. Teams can still maneuvre in their first three rows. All I'm trying to do is prevent the wolves getting more kills by steering events on the board.

Now the counter-argument is that if both sides go all out storming the opponents' king then it takes the initiative out of the hands of the wolves and could finish the game quickly. While this had merit I still feel that all that such a strategy (which, by nature, can't be organised) is a lot of dead pieces and the king not being overly threatened. Particularly as the wolves will be doing their best to make sure that neither side hits the king.

Another thing - knights can only scan for wolves within one square or a legal move away. If we aim to keep pieces grouped then I think there's more of a chance of them hitting a wolf with their seer scan. (although, to be honest, the chances aren't all that great anyway).

Thoughts?

I suspect there are a lot more than four wolves since I understand that every Knight is a seer. An equal number of seers to wolves? Seems dangerous. So, either some of those seers are wolves, or we have more wolves. I suspect one each of Knight, Rook, Bishop and Pawns if there are just four, and that doesn't leave a lot of room for mistakes by the wolves so I guess there are a more - perhaps six or so, which would still only be double the number of seers in this case (which is still dangerous for the wolves).

As for the interdiction, I'm not sure. I am convinceable though, if you want to go that route.

[Abe Sargent]

It looks like so far this game people are taking a cautious approach to revealing Black/White info - which is fine by me. However, that does leave us with a little less to talk about in the thread on Day 1.

So here are a couple of things that I think make some sense to discuss:
1. # of wolves: 20 players, no conversion option. I'm guessing that leaves 4-5 wolves.

2. Vote strategy: everyone knows someone (right?) on their Black/White team so I would expect people to instinctively protect their counterpart. However, getting a group of 2-4 players in a close vote is probably the way to go (ex - Pass as wolf last game flushed out the wolves on votes early, even if it wasn't properly identified and acted upon)

3. Thoughts on identifying your own team and teammates - I'm hoping that we'll be able to do this as we start moving about the board but I'm not exactly sure how that will work for those of us that are not bishops.

And King/Queen as well, don;t forget them.

[Narcizo]

Narc, here is how I see the consequences of your plan:
1. I think your plan puts a bigger bullseye on the knights.
2. As a result, it begins to force the hand of the rooks on their protection orders.
3. Which in turn allows the wolves to go elsewhere if they have a knight (or two) on one side of the board.


Point three's the thing I didn't think about. The wolves will try to move outside of the range of the knight and that will be easier if they don't have to worry about being taken by another piece. I'll have to think about that.

Don't understand 1 0r 2. 1 - you're actually protecting the knight by not sending it off into enemy territory. 2 - the rooks don't know who the knights are so how will they protect them. Unless they are allowed to specify a piece or a spot on the board or something.

I'm all for an agreement not to attack knights but I'm not sure if we can really rely on that. If an opponent wolf sees a knight, chances are he's going to try and capture it, which brings us back to why it's safer for the knight to stay on his own half of the board.

[KWhit]

I'm not a fan of Narc's plan at all.

From the rules:

The game ends in one of four ways:

1. If the White King dies, Black wins.
2. If the Black King dies, White wins.
3. If only the two Kings and wolves are alive, the Wolves win.
4. If only the two Kings are alive, the game ends in a stalemate.


The only way for a non-wolf to win is to take out the other king. Why would we sit around in the first three rows and not try to take out the other King. Every turn that we don't make progress in doing that gives the wolves another night to take us out one by one.

The way I interpret the game is that the 'villagers' have to go balls out trying to take down the other king and to protect their own king. The wolves are only an obstacle to acheiving those goals.

[Abe Sargent]

Narc, here is how I see the consequences of your plan:
1. I think your plan puts a bigger bullseye on the knights.
2. As a result, it begins to force the hand of the rooks on their protection orders.
3. Which in turn allows the wolves to go elsewhere if they have a knight (or two) on one side of the board.

Maybe the other two already happen on the first turn or two. But after that the knights will have had the ability to make their move across the board if they are interested in doing so. I'm generally against restricting the options of the knights ... if you take them out of the mix then I'm fine with the remainder of your plan.

I would also be amiable to a proposal suggesting that both sides agree not to deliberately take out a knight with a "chess move".

As long as the Knight doesn;t take pieces, I'd be fine with that.

[Narcizo]

I suspect there are a lot more than four wolves since I understand that every Knight is a seer. An equal number of seers to wolves? Seems dangerous.

Well, as I've pointed out the wolves have a lot of advantages in terms of information and the knight's seer ability is pretty severely restricted.

[Narcizo]

The way I interpret the game is that the 'villagers' have to go balls out trying to take down the other king and to protect their own king. The wolves are only an obstacle to acheiving those goals.

How would you suggest we do that when we can't co-ordinate an attack or the defence as you don't have any idea who is going to help you or how, while the wolves will be able to do both of those things. Say you have a bishop - you need to know where the king is to be able to hit him otherwise you're going to go sweeping into the enemy's territory and then get picked off by whatever pieces are hanging around to cover the king's back. (probably a rook).

[Neon_Chaos]

I don't think that any of the Knights are wolves. It's hard enough for the four knights to scan everyone. Having one or two of them as fake would make the seer role practically useless.

[KWhit]

How would you suggest we do that when we can't co-ordinate an attack or the defence as you don't have any idea who is going to help you or how, while the wolves will be able to do both of those things. Say you have a bishop - you need to know where the king is to be able to hit him otherwise you're going to go sweeping into the enemy's territory and then get picked off by whatever pieces are hanging around to cover the king's back. (probably a rook).

Hell if I know. But I know that we can't win the game if we sit around in a 3 row area waiting for the wolves to pick us off. We need to gain information - not about who's a wolf and who's not, but about who's white and who's black. The only way to do that is to move around the board a bit.

[Neon_Chaos]

To explain further, the knights have to be at a certain distance from a player, and he has to pick one piece from a number of possible pieces.... To do that to essentially a perpetually changing board (due to the movements that can be availed by everyone), is difficult enough.

[Narcizo]

Hell if I know. But I know that we can't win the game if we sit around in a 3 row area waiting for the wolves to pick us off. We need to gain information - not about who's a wolf and who's not, but about who's white and who's black. The only way to do that is to move around the board a bit.

In what way are we waiting for them to pick us off? We're playing a normal game of werewolf (with slightly odd roles, admittedly). It would be a 16:4 (probably) game. Seems like decent odds for the good guys - particularly as there's two dukes. Meanwhile the bishops are gathering info on who's white and black.

[st.cronin]

I don't think that any of the Knights are wolves. It's hard enough for the four knights to scan everyone. Having one or two of them as fake would make the seer role practically useless.

I agree with this.

[KWhit]

In what way are we waiting for them to pick us off? We're playing a normal game of werewolf (with slightly odd roles, admittedly). It would be a 16:4 (probably) game. Seems like decent odds for the good guys - particularly as there's two dukes. Meanwhile the bishops are gathering info on who's white and black.

I just mean that our win conditions are not at all tied to the wolves, so focusing on them more than the chess game seems backwards to me.

[Neon_Chaos]

1. If the White King dies, Black wins.
2. If the Black King dies, White wins.
3. If only the two Kings and wolves are alive, the Wolves win.
4. If only the two Kings are alive, the game ends in a stalemate.

Okay. Is it more prudent for us to weed out the Wolves and then attempt to win the chess game. Or, do we attempt to win the chess game hoping the wolves don't pick everyone off?

Pretty tough choice. Either way, the wolves are probably going to pick us off one at a time anyway.

[mccollins]

Hello everyone! I've finally caught up and I'm trying to get a read on things.

A bit less than 24 hours til the voting deadline, eh?

[mccollins]

Okay. Is it more prudent for us to weed out the Wolves and then attempt to win the chess game. Or, do we attempt to win the chess game hoping the wolves don't pick everyone off?

Pretty tough choice. Either way, the wolves are probably going to pick us off one at a time anyway.

If all the wolves are gone, do we still vote to lynch? Or just play a chess game? (Albeit while both sides move at roughly the same time.)

[hoopsguy]

I think you can have your cake and eat it too - try to win at chess without putting undue jeopardy on the roles that can catch the wolves.

[Passacaglia]

If all the wolves are gone, do we still vote to lynch? Or just play a chess game? (Albeit while both sides move at roughly the same time.)

Yes, you still vote to lynch.

[KWhit]

If all the wolves are gone, do we still vote to lynch? Or just play a chess game? (Albeit while both sides move at roughly the same time.)

I think at that point you try to lynch the players who aren't on your team.

In fact, I'd say that's a good strategy from the start.

[jeheinz72]

I think we can go for both goals. Winning the chess game and offing the wolves. I don't think we should put all of our eggs in either of those two baskets.

[mccollins]

I think at that point you try to lynch the players who aren't on your team.

In fact, I'd say that's a good strategy from the start.

Even though, at this point, we have no idea who is or is not on the black or white team with us?

[Narcizo]

I just mean that our win conditions are not at all tied to the wolves, so focusing on them more than the chess game seems backwards to me.

Well what else do you suggest we discuss with a group of people you know are more than 50% enemies? (this really is the perfect set up for my paranoid side). Strategies for winning the game? I think the chess game will have to take place on the board while the business of finding the wolves takes place in the thread. It seems to me all we can do in the thread at the moment is try to find the wolves. Of course it would be nice to pick off the opposition with lynch votes. Just not overly pratical at this stage.

Anyway, I'm off now. Have fun everyone. :)

[KWhit]

As I think about this more, I wonder if I have been making an invalid assumption.

I was assuming that as we move through the board we'd find out the identity of the players/pieces we can see.

Something like:
You move to square B6. In square C7, you see JoeBob, the White Knight.

But now I wonder if maybe we won't find out the identity of the pieces we can see and it would be something like this:
You move to square B6. In square C7, you see the White Knight.

Pass, can you comment on this?

[mccollins]

KWhit, I think it is the less descriptive second version.

In addition, I think the terms "friendly" and "enemy" are used so as not to give away colors to those that don't know their own color.

[Barkeep49]

I think we're looking at far more than 4 wolves. I would suggest 6 or 8. If they're aren't 6 or 8 we're looking at a situation where it's virtually impossible for them to win. Considering that in Pass's last game it was virtually impossible for the wolves to win, it's quite possibly true in this game as well. So in that case we're playing chess.

[Passacaglia]

As I think about this more, I wonder if I have been making an invalid assumption.

I was assuming that as we move through the board we'd find out the identity of the players/pieces we can see.

Something like:
You move to square B6. In square C7, you see JoeBob, the White Knight.

But now I wonder if maybe we won't find out the identity of the pieces we can see and it would be something like this:
You move to square B6. In square C7, you see the White Knight.

Pass, can you comment on this?


Your second description is correct. And mccollins is also correct, that I'll be using "Friendly" and "Enemy" for the pieces that don't know what color they are.

[KWhit]

Your second description is correct. And mccollins is also correct, that I'll be using "Friendly" and "Enemy" for the pieces that don't know what color they are.

Now I don't know what the hell our strategy needs to be.

:)

[jeheinz72]

Well, I split for the day in a half hour, gotta get a vote in. I'll go for someone who hasn't checked in yet.

Vote Qwikshot

[path12]

Would I be correct to assume that pawns would want to have an early time for their moves while back pieces would want to have a later time for any moves they might make? (knights excepted).

[path12]

And I don't know about voting anything yet while I have little idea of what's going on still. I'd hate to vote off my queen or something.

VOTE NO LYNCH

Very well could change that later, but for now I don't see a huge downside to it.

[jeheinz72]

Oh, can we vote No Lynch pass? I was operating under the assumption we couldn't.

[Lathum]

checking in, no clue whats going on.

[st.cronin]

Would I be correct to assume that pawns would want to have an early time for their moves while back pieces would want to have a later time for any moves they might make? (knights excepted).

I think that's correct, although when the board opens up that may change a bit.

[hoopsguy]

checking in, no clue whats going on.

Heh, forgot you were playing this game. Is this your attempt to lay low after last game? :p

[Lathum]

Heh, forgot you were playing this game. Is this your attempt to lay low after last game? :p

clearly it's working

[The Jackal]

just checked the rules, voting no lynch is an option in this one

[Abe Sargent]

Quiet here.

[Abe Sargent]

Well , since we are punished for not voting.

Vote No Lynch

I fully expect to move this later, but i wanted to toss it out there, just in case my computer breaks or somesuch.

[KWhit]

This could change later, but for now, I don't see a real benefit to voting someone off. And I'm usually violently opposed to this in a normal ww game.

Vote No Lynch

[oliegirl]

Last check in for the night, I'm going to wait until tomorrow to cast my vote, I'm working at 10:15 so I'll be around in the morning.

Nothing to say right now, been a typical day 1 with no information out there.

[hoopsguy]

OK - is there a compelling reason to go "No Lynch" today? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there at least 4 of most of the roles in the game? No offense to anyone, but that has the ring of "disposable" to me. In fact, we don't even have the ability to mistakenly vote off a king.

I understand that people want to avoid the "Day 1 screw vote" and that there is information that can be gathered from multiple roles. Completely understand that. Sometimes I take a position like this to play Devil's Advocate, but I really think the "play nice" trend that we are establishing slows us down from learning. We lose out on a day of voting records, we lose out on one chance to actually take the lead on the wolves, and we lose out on the chance to get players posting while under some stress - a time where I usually form my strongest "trust" vibes short of a seer reveal.

I'll be casting a vote tonight, and it won't be "No Lynch".

[claphamsa]

im here! and confused!

[Abe Sargent]

OK - is there a compelling reason to go "No Lynch" today? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there at least 4 of most of the roles in the game? No offense to anyone, but that has the ring of "disposable" to me. In fact, we don't even have the ability to mistakenly vote off a king.

I understand that people want to avoid the "Day 1 screw vote" and that there is information that can be gathered from multiple roles. Completely understand that. Sometimes I take a position like this to play Devil's Advocate, but I really think the "play nice" trend that we are establishing slows us down from learning. We lose out on a day of voting records, we lose out on one chance to actually take the lead on the wolves, and we lose out on the chance to get players posting while under some stress - a time where I usually form my strongest "trust" vibes short of a seer reveal.

I'll be casting a vote tonight, and it won't be "No Lynch".

I'm casting no vote just to get it out there with the intention of changing later.

[Barkeep49]

Hoops I feel like I damage the good guys twice as much by voting off a member of my side. There's so much information to be gained, with so many potential seers out there.

Vote no lynch

[The Jackal]

With absolutely no information except PM partners I think it's hard to vote for someone in particular on the first day. Why would we want to risk voting off one of our teams' most important roles? I'm leaning towards no lynch at this point.

[mccollins]

OK - is there a compelling reason to go "No Lynch" today? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there at least 4 of most of the roles in the game? No offense to anyone, but that has the ring of "disposable" to me. In fact, we don't even have the ability to mistakenly vote off a king.

I understand that people want to avoid the "Day 1 screw vote" and that there is information that can be gathered from multiple roles. Completely understand that. Sometimes I take a position like this to play Devil's Advocate, but I really think the "play nice" trend that we are establishing slows us down from learning. We lose out on a day of voting records, we lose out on one chance to actually take the lead on the wolves, and we lose out on the chance to get players posting while under some stress - a time where I usually form my strongest "trust" vibes short of a seer reveal.

I'll be casting a vote tonight, and it won't be "No Lynch".

Looking to have the villagers eat their own to do your dirty work?

Vote hoopsguy

Like everyone else, I might change the vote tomorrow...

[hoopsguy]

Knight
You have trained all your life to fight the evil monsters known as werewolves, and learned in the code of chivalry enough to recognize a werewolf, should you come across one. You may choose to examine one player each turn, and found out if that player is a werewolf -- however, that player's piece (or one of his pieces) must be within your visible area on the board at some point in the night (if that player was not in that area, you will be told that the player was not near you that night). On the board, you may move two spaces in one horizontal or vertical direction and one space in the other direction, and you may "jump" over any pieces between you and your destination. You can see one space away from you, plus anywhere you would be eligible to move.. You may communicate via PM with the other Knight of your color.

So the "seer" has to call his person, then hope that he is in range for him to use his power. If we are looking to accelerate the seers in this game, then we really ought to go after that whole hog. Start having people identify where they are on the map, start drilling into what faction people are with, etc.

But since we are playing Chess in addition to werewolf, we are making it tougher for those seers to obtain good information. If we want to just play werewolf, we should be able to smoke out the wolves pretty quickly - provided that there is a reasonable number of them. This is where I saw issues with Passacaglia's "Clue" game - people were playing Werewolf instead of playing Clue, and it unbalanced the game. So far this game, people seem to want to play the game that Passacaglia has established - Chess + Werewolf.

Look, I'm OK with "lets enable the seers" - I just think that we should collectively pick a lane.
a.) hunt the werewolves with all options available to us
b.) play werewolf, which includes actually voting for people

I recognize that there is room for a reasonable "c" alternative, but I think that a "no lynch" while waiting for information that is less likely to arrive due to game mechanics that a traditional seer reveal is a specious argument.

[claphamsa]

I hate no lycn and never do it.

vote jackyl

[hoopsguy]

Looking to have the villagers eat their own to do your dirty work?

Vote hoopsguy

Like everyone else, I might change the vote tomorrow...

I'm willing to break eggs to make omelettes. Starting with Day 1.

A vote for me isn't a good vote, but it is better than "No Vote" - you actually have a chance to learn something from it.

Tell me - what happens when there is no information revealed on Day 2 from our seers? Do we go "No Vote" again, because the seers are bound to turn up information at some point? Because I've seen that scenario play itself out in these games as well - except people flip their logic on Day 2 from Day 1. At that point the masses usually accept that we need voting records and that we shouldn't hand an advantage to the wolves by letting them dictate kills. But then Day 2 plays like Day 1, because the Seers aren't going to come forward with the people they have cleared, so there isn't some kind of established trust list.

I'll vote "No Lynch" if I get the opinion that the knights are going to come forward with cleared players tomorrow. Of course, that would mean they have to reveal themselves, which would be wolfish of me to request, right? Oh, that's right - I'm already a wolf for trying to vote someone off the island on Day 1.

I'm sticking with voting. Mccollins is as good as anyone for me at this point.

VOTE MCCOLLINS

[hoopsguy]

And, unlike most - it will probably take a damn good argument to get me to change a fairly random Day 1 vote.

Reasons for the "fairly random vote":
- he is not the person I can chat with on my team
- he appears to favor "No Lynch", a position that I do not support
- he is strongly suggesting I'm a wolf for looking to get a vote today

Good enough for me - since I don't see any reveals coming forward on Night 0 I don't think I'll be moving.

[mccollins]

I recognize that there is room for a reasonable "c" alternative, but I think that a "no lynch" while waiting for information that is less likely to arrive due to game mechanics that a traditional seer reveal is a specious argument.

So it would be advantageous for your game to have the seers reveal themselves to you?

Come on, don't be so obvious ;) I wasn't going to keep my vote on you but you're making it hard.

[mccollins]

- he appears to favor "No Lynch", a position that I do not support


If I wanted to vote No Lynch, I would have.

It doesn't matter to me either way (lynch or no lynch); I haven't played enough to have learned to hate No Lynches like you and claphamsa (Heinz seems to hate them too).

The tone of post #172 just came across wolfishly and #178 didn't help matters.

(This will most likely be my last post of the night - see ya in the morning).

[hoopsguy]

mccollins, I don't think the seers should reveal until they are good and ready to do so. But, given that thought process, I don't think that going "No Lynch" while waiting for them to turn up a wolf is the prudent play.

You do understand we don't have four seers, in the conventional sense, right? That their powers are proximity based, and that the people they are scanning may or may not be in range for them? And that we don't have a way (that I know of, anyway) to match players with roles to help with making good scan decisions based on proximity?

[The Jackal]

I hate no lycn and never do it.

vote jackyl

why do you keep voting me on the first day? i love you too.

vote claphamsa

[mccollins]

mccollins, I don't think the seers should reveal until they are good and ready to do so. But, given that thought process, I don't think that going "No Lynch" while waiting for them to turn up a wolf is the prudent play.

You do understand we don't have four seers, in the conventional sense, right? That their powers are proximity based, and that the people they are scanning may or may not be in range for them? And that we don't have a way (that I know of, anyway) to match players with roles to help with making good scan decisions based on proximity?

Incidently, I think this might be why Pass changed the seers from the Bishops to the Knights - harder to get good scans.

Alright, I'm really out of here.

[claphamsa]

why do you keep voting me on the first day? i love you too.

vote claphamsa

basicaly cuz ur my love sheep, and these day one votes mena nothing!

[The Jackal]

I actually have no problem with day 1 no lynches, especially in games which may especially benefit from them (like a game where it's not just villagers v wolves straight out..)

I'm willing to change my vote for clap.. I have no reason to suspect foulplay from him, he hasn't said anything at all, I just don't like random accusations on day 1, really.

[hoopsguy]

Once in a great while I see a ruleset where I can rationalize "No Lynch" in my mind. But otherwise, I think it is a copout by villagers who want to play nicely with others in a game where that is clearly not the point.

I don't want to antagonize someone unjustly. I don't want to make personal attacks. I don't want to make the game an unenjoyable experience. But I do want to win the game, and along the way try to collect data that helps with that goal. Conversation, followed by votes, are the weapons that each villager have the power to provide. A "no lynch" decision casts those aside.

That is the broader sense of why I "hate" the no lynch vote. If you would like to continue the discussion after the game - or after one of us is dead, I suppose - then I would be interested in doing so in a context where there are not any assumed motives. I think you will find I'm consistent on this point. And I would be interested in anyone who has different thoughts on this - both in the context of this game and in a broader sense.

[The Jackal]

basicaly cuz ur my love sheep, and these day one votes mena nothing!

love sheep? you need to move to west virginia.

[Abe Sargent]

love sheep? you need to move to west virginia.

Unvote no Lynch
Vote The Jackal

Don;t make fun of West Virginia in my game!

;)

[Abe Sargent]

Oh, and WV doesn't have much in the way of sheep. We have...um...coal. Chickens. Lumber. Mountain Top Removal. Not many sheep. Pick on another state.

[PurdueBrad]

Placeholder vote for now and to avoid spreading things out:

vote Hoopsguy

Although I realize he can be an incredibly valuable villager as well as a truly dangerous wolf.

[PurdueBrad]

As for no lynch, I'm worried we don't learn anything by it. I go back and forth every game that has this and I am getting to the point where I think you have to lynch because it's a cop out vote and a place for wolves to hide because they basically get a free night kill.

[hoopsguy]

Right logic, wrong guy PB.

At the time I started stomping my foot on the issue the vote was something like 4-1 in favor of the "No Lynch". I would have zero incentive to push for a lynch as a wolf, knowing that I'm likely to get the "fine, we'll vote for you instead" logic thrown at me.

[The Jackal]

Listen anxiety, i was going to say vermont, because sheep screwing is much more popular there, but clap and i have had talks about west virginia, so dont take it personally. My mom has a house there and it's actually very nice.

[RendeR]

VOTE HOOPSGUY


Reasoning? I've never seen him be this animated and almost antagonistic about any game mecahnic in any game I've played with him. he's being way over the top on day 1, seems rather strange to me. Vote open to change before deadline of course.

[RendeR]

Oh, and WV doesn't have much in the way of sheep. We have...um...coal. Chickens. Lumber. Mountain Top Removal. Not many sheep. Pick on another state.


don't forget the inbred hillbillies.....oh, wait, you were TRYING to avoid that part.....my bad...carry on.

[The Jackal]

This is a pretty out there game mechanic render. Granted you've played much more with hoopsguy than I have, but it's seemed to me he's just responding to Narc more than anything.

[The Jackal]

Since I'm bored, drunk (on margaritas, go cinco de mayo!), I'll work up a vote count. I should be around until 2ish tomorrow afternoon too, so I'll update it as much as I can.

[hoopsguy]

RendeR, do you disagree with my points on the "no lynch"? Just checking.

[hoopsguy]

Jackal, I've got it covered for now. However, I won't be around a bunch tomorrow so if you (or someone else) wants to take over posting it then you are welcome to it:

No Lynch - Path (161), KWhit (170), Barkeep (175)
Hoops - Mccollins (177), Purdue (194), RendeR (197)
Jackal - Clap (179), Anxiety (191)
Qwikshot - Heinz (159)
Mccollins - Hoops (180)
Clap - Jackal (185)

[RendeR]

I don't agree or disagree really. no lynch for me is a gam by game basis basedon wether I think it makes sense for that particular game and wether anyone has garnered enough attention to warrent a vote.

[The Jackal]

hoops i went ahead and made my own list so i'm just going to post it so i have an original to copy off of, plus it doublechecks us

no lynch (3) - path12 (161), KWhit (170), Barkeep49 (175)
hoopsguy (3) - mccollins (177), PurdueBrad (193), RendeR (197)
The Jackal (2) - claphamsa (179), Anxiety (191)
Qwikshot (1) - jeheinz72 (159)
mccollins (1) - hoopsguy (180)
claphamsa (1) - The Jackal (185)

[hoopsguy]

Oh, and I suppose someone else would need to take over the vote counts if you lynch me ... forgot about that in the last post.

Seriously, I get why you would put a vote on me in that I'm not communicating directly with any of you three. So there is a better than 50% chance that I'm not on your team. But you have a zero percent chance of getting a wolf with a vote for me.

I suppose that this is what I get for asking people to actually vote for a player instead of wasting a day. So be it - I'll be taking the same stance next time this comes around.

Oh, and I've been at least this animated about other game mechanics - for example, my hatred of being converted and the imbalanced "spy" role just to pick two off the top of my head. Heck, I think I've been pretty public in multiple games about my thoughts on "No Lynch". If doing some "dumpster diving" in past games would help prove this point I guess I could do that, but I'm hoping that there are some people (clearly not RendeR) who recall me arguing this position in the past.

[RendeR]

Relax furball, I'm just messing wit-ya. Maybe.

I'll probably change the vote, as I didn't see the early one on you, I thought you only had 1 when I posted that. But for now its good enough to hold a place for me.

[RendeR]

PASS: may we know what the tie-breaking rules are? or is that a super-secret-eyes-only-red-glasses-specialty-decrypto-decoder-ring sorta thing?

[hoopsguy]

Oops, I multi-quoted in the wrong thread. If you actually want to follow the links go to the Heroes thread :) But the content is listed below:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by hoopsguy http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/styles/sideline/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1674609#post1674609)
I'm OK with no lynch, but a little worried that we could be giving up two kills per night - one to Company, one to Sylar. The kills to Sylar, if it follows the show, equate to him gaining powers. For better or worse, people we lynch don't get eaten by Sylar. And we gain no info from a player on the hot seat if we vote no lynch. No matter the format, werewolf is always about gaining information. Do we really gain more information by not applying any pressure for one day in the thread rather than taking a shot at a bad guy with a largely random Day 1 vote?

Those are the reasons to go against the trend. Just making sure that someone is actually representing them in the thread before we all go down the no lynch path.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by hoopsguy http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/styles/sideline/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1674627#post1674627)
Lathum, I don't know how it is going to work. If I had to guess then I would think the Company kills every night and Sylar every other one while he is out there, but we (villagers) will all get to find out together over the next couple of days.

I just think that people are jumping on the "no lynch" idea pretty quickly. And I generally don't like bandwagons. So I wanted to at least present the opposing viewpoint, which I felt had been under-represented up to this point.

I'm probably going to put a vote on someone rather than go "no lynch", even if it is appears to be futile.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by hoopsguy http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/styles/sideline/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1674643#post1674643)
Lathum, I'm of the opinion that we need to get information - just like an other game of werewolf. Applying pressure is one way to do it. Runaway "no lynch" decisions is not a way to apply pressure to anyone.

Is the pressure applied on Day 1 often misdirected? Yep, especially when the final votes come in. But I'm not wild about the idea of foregoing discussion on players for a day, even if the end result is going to be "No Lynch". In fact, I would much rather see a tight vote - with or without "No Lynch" as one of the options available for voting.

Player A = 7 votes
Player B = 7 votes
No Lynch = 8 votes

That works just fine for me.

No Lynch = 20 votes
Player A = 2 votes
Player B = 1 vote

That doesn't work for me at all, in terms of getting value from the day.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


It didn't take long at all to find this - these posts are from Day 1 of the Heroes game. I guess you can argue tone, but I don't think that I was all that over-the-top this time around. But I think I'm pretty consistent in my arguments on "No Lynch" - and Heroes had a ruleset that I thought was more compelling for "No Lynch" than this game.

I'll keep pulling up from other threads if there really is a belief that I'm pushing some kind of different agenda this game than others. But if people really want me to do that it is going to have to happen tonight as I don't think I'll be able to do much post diving tomorrow from work.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[hoopsguy]

Awesome - finally get some interesting conversation going (well, outside of the votes for me) and then I go multi-quoting from old threads and act as a thread-killer. The room went from "9 members" to "me" in a hurry.

Hello ... is this thing on?

[RendeR]

Hello ... is this thing on?




Umm...no? Who are you and why are you wearing flaming green pajamas?

[Passacaglia]

PASS: may we know what the tie-breaking rules are? or is that a super-secret-eyes-only-red-glasses-specialty-decrypto-decoder-ring sorta thing?

Quickest way would have been to read the rules. :p

Ties will result in all the people tied being removed from the game (except for the Kings, of course).

[path12]

Once in a great while I see a ruleset where I can rationalize "No Lynch" in my mind. But otherwise, I think it is a copout by villagers who want to play nicely with others in a game where that is clearly not the point.

hoops, I think you know me well enough to know that 'playing nicely with others' is fairly low on my priority list, though I usually at least try to be polite. ;)

My rationale for no lynch, this particular time, is because in a non-traditional werewolf setting such as this I think there is a benefit to seeing how the ruleset plays out for a day in order to get a better feel as to what's going on.

This could be because I'm not all that smart, and complicated games hurt my head; but this time it's because I see more benefit to seeing how the combination of chess + werewolf works before knocking off folks who might be of benefit to us down the road.

[RendeR]

Quickest way would have been to read the rules. :p


So yer saying its not a super-secret-specialty-decoder-ring type thing?

[path12]

Besides, if I voted anybody day 1 it would be whoever didn't check in as per my usual.

Has everyone checked in by the way?

[hoopsguy]

Path, in many cases we would still have three players remaining who can use the role. We can't vote out a king. So the greatest risk, I suppose, would be the ouster of a queen. I'm guessing that this would not be very likely to happen as a "reveal" would take place before that went down.

In the event of a reveal, it forces the player to be more cautious but it also provides some real benefits in terms of establishing a COT. In the example of a "forced queen reveal" the bishops could submit scans on that person who is sitting right next to them and may very well be fenced in again next turn based on pawn movement in front of them. I think similar arguments can be made for other pieces on the board. I'm not advocating that people reveal their "piece + location" but establishing voting records, forcing a subset of players to reveal, and validating reveals are all good things in the overall scheme of obtaining info.

If people elect to go "No Vote" that is obviously their perogative, just as it is mine to suggest that I think it is a poor strategy. At the moment, I guess I would prefer to not be lynched, so if that is my option I'll likely end up going against my better judgement.

[The Jackal]

Ties will result in all the people tied being removed from the game (except for the Kings, of course).

Am i the only one that reads the rules? ;)

[The Jackal]

With my previous post in mind, I don't think a tie helps us at all.

unvote clap

vote no lynch

[path12]

I understand your reasoning and personally I'm not looking at you any differently for your feelings about needing a lynch, because I get that.

Again, my rationale is not because I'm afraid of losing a seer, but more that I don't have a feel yet as to how all these pieces are going to fit together and want to see a turn before I start casting stones (or pawns as the case may be).

Plus, while a forced reveal of a queen might be advantageous at some point, I'm not convinced that a day 1 reveal of any powerful role helps the good guys in this particular ruleset.

[The Jackal]

no lynch (4) - path12 (161), KWhit (170), Barkeep49 (175), The Jackal (217)
hoopsguy (3) - mccollins (177), PurdueBrad (193), RendeR (197)
The Jackal (2) - claphamsa (179), Anxiety (191)
Qwikshot (1) - jeheinz72 (159)
mccollins (1) - hoopsguy (180)

I've had many margaritas so that may or may not be my last vote count of the night.

[The Jackal]

I understand your reasoning and personally I'm not looking at you any differently for your feelings about needing a lynch, because I get that.

Again, my rationale is not because I'm afraid of losing a seer, but more that I don't have a feel yet as to how all these pieces are going to fit together and want to see a turn before I start casting stones (or pawns as the case may be).

Plus, while a forced reveal of a queen might be advantageous at some point, I'm not convinced that a day 1 reveal of any powerful role helps the good guys in this particular ruleset.

I'm definitely in agreement with all of that. In this game in particular forced early role reveals would probably hurt more than help.

[hoopsguy]

Heading to bed, hoping someone picks up the vote count baton leading up to deadline tomorrow:

No Lynch - Path (161), KWhit (170), Barkeep (175), Jackal (217)
Hoops - Mccollins (177), Purdue (194), RendeR (197)
Jackal - Clap (179), Anxiety (191)
Qwikshot - Heinz (159)
Mccollins - Hoops (180)

[The Jackal]

I'm all over the baton. Just don't expect me to wake up before 11 or so.

[The Jackal]

Furthermore, I have a physical therapy appt at 3 EST to start rehabbing my "partial ligament tear" so I won't be around at the deadline, but I should be around from 11AM - 2 PM.

[hoopsguy]

The chances of a forced queen reveal, in particular, are 10%.

If you assume that there are four wolves (likely the minimum number in the game) then the chances of a wolf having to scramble are 20%. It climbs to 30% if there are six.

I realize that straight math doesn't account for the likelihood of a wolf getting in that position since they have a big(ger) block that can communicate and steer votes. However, as a rule I'm guessing that we have a better chance of putting heat on a wolf than we do of screwing over a key role.

[Lathum]

VOTE NO LYNCH

[ntndeacon]

Vote KWhit
Just to put a vote out there I am not really in favor of a no lynch at the moment.

[Sonic Youth]

Right, I'll have to read this a bit later, and print some of this up for when I'm commuting to get a grasp of how things are to go.

[The Jackal]

Me tired.

no lynch (5) - path12 (161), KWhit (170), Barkeep49 (175), The Jackal (217), Lathum (225)
hoopsguy (3) - mccollins (177), PurdueBrad (193), RendeR (197)
The Jackal (2) - claphamsa (179), Anxiety (191)
Qwikshot (1) - jeheinz72 (159)
mccollins (1) - hoopsguy (180)
KWhit (1) - ntndeacon (226)

Ill update when I wake up.

[Narcizo]

I think we're looking at far more than 4 wolves. I would suggest 6 or 8. If they're aren't 6 or 8 we're looking at a situation where it's virtually impossible for them to win. Considering that in Pass's last game it was virtually impossible for the wolves to win, it's quite possibly true in this game as well. So in that case we're playing chess.

How so? We have four knights but for all we know one of those is a wolf (yes Cronin, I really don't see why a knight shouldn't be a wolf. Pass actually used the number 18. If he was excluding knights it would be 14. And if you're going to exclude knights then you'd better exclude the wolf bodygaurds - meaning all we have to do is look at the pawn, bishop, 2 of the rooks and queens as potential wolves). If one is a wolf then the wolves know the identity of the other wolf.

The wolves ideal on-board tactics will be to play it safe, letting the villager pieces take all the risks and die. With the sort of information pool they have they have a very good chance of knowing everything that's going on on the board, so they can position themselves safely and subtly try to influence their PM partners to take an aggressive approach and spring a trap on them.

The wolves have a lot going on for them. I don't see any reason to believe that there need be more than 4 - in fact many more than that and the fact that they know who their PM partner is means that they can get a pretty comprehensive picture of what role everyone has. If anything I'd balance the game by having less wolves.

[path12]

Nothing a GM loves more than an discussion of whether the game is too easy or too hard for one side. Usually means it's right on.

[Narcizo]

OK - is there a compelling reason to go "No Lynch" today? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there at least 4 of most of the roles in the game? No offense to anyone, but that has the ring of "disposable" to me. In fact, we don't even have the ability to mistakenly vote off a king.


Strongly agree with hoops on this one. And very surprised at some of the people who are voting "no lynch" here. Seems that the only reason you'd want a no vote is if
a) you think the knights have a decent chance of hitting a target with their scans. Odds are they won't even get a villager scan, let alone a wolf scan. I'd rather take one conventional seer over the four knights if the game was solely about taking out the wolves.
b) You plan on storming the opponent's king and hope that your team-mates are going to help you. But even in this case the chances are just as great that you take out one of the opponents' defenders as one of your team-mates pieces. Makes no sense to me.

No lynch is an almighty cop out by any villager voting it. You're giving the wolves a free ride (last game give me an insight into how a day one lynch vote can really pressure the wolves) and it's only the wolves who would be interested in doing that.

[Narcizo]

OK I think that we need to counter-act the no lynch vote. That leaves me picking between hoops and Jackal. Hoops is giving off a far more believable villager vibe at the moment. (blah blah blah cunning wolf etc etc ad nauseum).

This is a pretty out there game mechanic render. Granted you've played much more with hoopsguy than I have, but it's seemed to me he's just responding to Narc more than anything.

This is probably just an innocent comment but another interpretation is that could potential seen as premptive blame placing for a villager hoops lynch (placing blame with either Render or myself) and adds 5% on my wolfometer. Jackal also seemed to be flip-flopping between a lynch and no-lynch vote, which makes it seem like he's trying to gauge which is the winning horse. I get pretty suspicious of "I'm leaning towards ..." comments on day one.

Vote Jackal

[Narcizo]

I think we also need to establish which sort of role reveals warrant a save from a lynch. My thoughts are that we don't want to lynch knights, the wolf-bodyguard rook and the Queen. If I were to rank them I'd probably put them as;

Wolf-Bodyguard Rook - Can stop the wolves making a night kill. Little ambiguity to that really.
Knights - I'm doubtful of their value although I've been trying to think of a way to improve their value and will see what I can come up with.
Queen - I was doubtful whether to include this piece, as I'll explain later.

I've seen a couple of comments that really confuse me. It seems that people are really digesting the fact that the Bishop role is absolutely nuetral to you at the moment. (unless you're a bishop yourself, in which case someone else having it are at the bottom of the list). A bishop will find out the allegiance of someone there's only a 50% chance that that fact will benefit your side. I sort of get the feeling that people are (sub-conciously, at least) thinking that the roles are all going to be helping their side. This explains the love of the queen. In fact I'm strongly tempted not to include the queen in my list of roles we don't want to lynch because, Heh! There's a 50% chance that lynching the queen will significantly help my side. The only reason I included it is because it's the one piece that can really threaten the opponent's king at any stage in the game - and the wolves really don't like pieces like that.

[Narcizo]

It seems that people aren't really digesting the fact that the Bishop role is absolutely nuetral to you at the moment.

obviously.

So onto the Knights. They are going to be most useful if they have a lot of pieces around them for them to scan. This fact alone makes me think that my neutral-zone plan is the way to go. Let's face it if the white knight winds up surrounded by black pieces it's not really very likely that it will survive. However if it's surrounded by pieces of it's own colour then it's in a much secure position.

My feeling is that to maximise the knights potential to discover roles all villagers should make an effort to wind up with their piece next to the knight at the end of the day. Meanwhile the wolves will be trying to keep their distance and/or influence the knights so they wander off to the other side of the board and get gobbled up by the opposition.

To get a decent set of pieces surrounding the knight they need to move from their start position. It gets tricky to co-ordinate that though. Ideally, though, they need to follow standard chess practice and try to move to a centralised position. Meanwhile villagers should be trying to position their pieces to get themselves in range of the knight. Knights should be very wary of any scheme their partner hatches that sees them move away from the safety of their own side. In fact that goes for everyone, apart from the queen who, at least, knows that her partner isn't a wolf.

[Narcizo]

If one is a wolf then the wolves know the identity of the other knight.


D'oh!

One more thing. People are probably considering/discussing voting together with their PM partner. I would argue that this is a terrible idea, except in the instance where you're trying to save that person. Assuming that the wolves are in PM contact with villagers this will really allow the wolves a massive hand in controlling the vote. I think in this respect you should be ignoring any arguments put forward by your partner in a PM (and questioning why they're bringing them up in PM rather than in public in the first place) and voting the way you think.

This is particularly true for the pawns. Who have 4 votes each. Two pawns voting in unison will be enough to save/lynch anyone or push a no lynch through.

[Neon_Chaos]

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/17800/17890/chessboard_17890_md.gif

If noone moves, the Knights already have a clear view of everyone (if all the knights are good).

The Knights can see one space away (does this mean 360 degrees?), and any space where they can move.

Each Knight can see their adjacent Rook, Bishop, the three pawns in front of him, and the pawn in front of the Queen/King (depending on which side the knight is on).

Essentially, if noone moves the Knights can scan everyone.

[Chief Rum]

I think we're looking at far more than 4 wolves. I would suggest 6 or 8. If they're aren't 6 or 8 we're looking at a situation where it's virtually impossible for them to win. Considering that in Pass's last game it was virtually impossible for the wolves to win, it's quite possibly true in this game as well. So in that case we're playing chess.

Okay, that's way too many wolves. So overboard, that I would argue you might even know the number of wolves and are trying to mislead here.

It's a weak reason to vote for someone most days, but enough for me on Day One. Obviously, I am not a fan of the No Lynch.

VOTE BARKEEP

[Abe Sargent]

don't forget the inbred hillbillies.....oh, wait, you were TRYING to avoid that part.....my bad...carry on.

Now see, if you wanted the vote, all you had to do was ask.

Unvote The Jackal
Vote RendeR

;) ;) ;)

[Chief Rum]

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/17800/17890/chessboard_17890_md.gif

If noone moves, the Knights already have a clear view of everyone (if all the knights are good).

The Knights can see one space away (does this mean 360 degrees?), and any space where they can move.

Each Knight can see their adjacent Rook, Bishop, the three pawns in front of him, and the pawn in front of the Queen/King (depending on which side the knight is on).

Essentially, if noone moves the Knights can scan everyone.

Don't they also have to name a target, though? I don't think they get a carte blanche read on everyone around them. That just specifies the "range" of their ability.

And that doesn't even go into the possibility a knight is a wolf.

[Chief Rum]

I won't be available in the day as usual with work and being locked out from going here, but I will be around post deadline.

[Abe Sargent]

Not yet, obviously, but someone tomorrow pre-deadline I'd like to take a gander at those who've yet to check in and post.

[Narcizo]

Spreading the vote is pointless at this stage if you hope to avoid a no lynch.

Neon - good luck convincing everyone that they should stay put. And each individual knight can only see 3/4 other people in the opening set-up (depending on how the ownership of pawns is distributed). If they centralise and people move around them then the chances are that they can see a few more - say 5 or 6 maybe, ideally.

[Narcizo]

Essentially, if noone moves the Knights can scan everyone.

To explain myself better. My understanding of how the knights work is that they give the name of the person they wish to scan. If that person controls a piece that is in that knight's range then he will be told whether that person is a wolf or villager.

In the opening set up that means the knight has a 3/19 or 4/19 chance of getting a valid result. Not ideal. If the knights can move to a more centralised position and the surrounding pieces make an effort to get around the knight then that chance might improve to 6/19 or so. Still not great, but a better chance anyway.

[Neon_Chaos]

To explain myself better. My understanding of how the knights work is that they give the name of the person they wish to scan. If that person controls a piece that is in that knight's range then he will be told whether that person is a wolf or villager.

In the opening set up that means the knight has a 3/19 or 4/19 chance of getting a valid result. Not ideal. If the knights can move to a more centralised position and the surrounding pieces make an effort to get around the knight then that chance might improve to 6/19 or so. Still not great, but a better chance anyway.

I know how the Knights' scans work.

I'm just saying that if all the Knights are good, and the big pieces (rook/bishop) are good, then each knight can try and scan one of the big pieces right beside them. Eliminating a Rook Wolf or a Bishop Wolf can be pretty big.

That is, if noone moves.

I will echo the sentiment that that's going to be a stretch to expect everyone to stay put.

[Neon_Chaos]

I still haven't been convinced that keeping everyone alive and letting the Wolves make the first kill is not the best plan.

Vote No Lynch.

[Narcizo]

I know how the Knights' scans work.

I'm just saying that if all the Knights are good, and the big pieces (rook/bishop) are good, then each knight can try and scan one of the big pieces right beside them. Eliminating a Rook Wolf or a Bishop Wolf can be pretty big.


I'm not following. How can the knight try to scan one of the big pieces? All he can do is try to scan a person, while all everyone else (villagers) can do is try to move their piece so it is within his range.

Let's try to give an example of the ideal situation, (assuming white for simplicity's sake).

Pawns all move one step forward.
Knights move to D2 and E2.
Bishops and king and queen stay put
Rooks move to B1 and G1.

I think that's arranging things optimally (in terms of the knight scan). That way each knight can scan; a rook (a knight's move away), the other knight (adjacent), both bishops (one adjacent, one a knight's move away), the king and queen and both sets of pawns (all adjacent, at least 5 pawns in range).

So out of 19 possible targets this ideal set up would give each knight an 8/19 chance of a successful result. To be honest I think that's about as good as it's going to get for the knight's scan. And I suspect that we wouldn't be able to organise that even if there weren't any wolves who will do their best to sabotage such a plan anyway. Assuming all 4 knights are good and no knight is night killed (pun intended :D) that means that there's close to 90% chance that at least one knight will get a successful scan (11/19*11/19*11/19*11/19 is the chance of not getting a successful scan).

I actually think it would be in both factions interests to follow this plan but I doubt that there will be enough takers to implement it because
a) people will be worried about letting the opponents know where their pieces are likely to be, and
b) the wolves won't want to do it, and won't want villagers to follow it either.

As I've already pointed out, your "stay put" idea would result in only a 3 or 4/19 chance of a successful scan for each knight. Let's say it's 4/19, then the chance of at least one successful scan is just over 60% (15/19*15/19*15/19*15/19).

As I said that's assuming all the knights are good and that none are killed. Assuming there's a bad knight and he arranges the death of his partner (actually a pretty risky proposition for a wolf knight to follow on day one), then we're down to 11/19*11/19 or a slightly better than 60% chance of at least one successful scan for the optimal situation and under 30% chance of success for your method.

An obvious disadvantage with my neutral zone idea (which looks likely to fall by the wayside anyway) is that it stops the knights having any chance of scanning pieces of the opponents colour. Then again I would say the added advantages of relatively safely being able to scan more of your own colour outweighs that disadvantage.

[Narcizo]

Someone might want to check my maths on this one incidentally, as I'm not really certain about the calculations.

[Neon_Chaos]

What I was trying to say is that each Knight, based on the starting positions, can scan the Rook/Bishop adjacent to them without having them move.

This is on the assumption that none of the Knights are Wolves.

We can immediately clear four major pieces of being wolves on day 1 alone if noone moves.

[Narcizo]

I still haven't been convinced that keeping everyone alive and letting the Wolves make the first kill is not the best plan.

Vote No Lynch.

In all honesty how can that be the best move for the villagers? What's going to be different tomorrow? All that's going to happen is that we're going to be more likely to be at a stage where we're going to start throwing away villagers quickly on the board while the wolves play it safe, hold back and cover both kings's arses.

I think I've demonstrated that we can't really hold our breathe hoping for huge amounts of information from the knights while the bishops are irrelevent in tracking down the wolves. We either rely on blind luck on the board and someone trapping the king early (against a group of players who will have more information than us and will be co-ordinated) OR we establish voting records immediately and hope to get some early pressure on a wolf.

I'm finding this movement for a No Lynch bizarre. Particularly with people like Path and Lathum following it.

[Narcizo]

We can immediately clear four major pieces of being wolves on day 1 alone if noone moves.

Sorry but according to how I'm reading the rules, you can't. You don't scan a piece, you scan a person. You can't "clear" a piece directly, only through a process of elimination.

Say you're a knight, my understanding of the rules is that you send in an order, "Scan Narcizo" for example. Then if I control a piece that winds up next to your knight you get a message that says that I'm a villager. If I'm not in range you'll get a message saying your scan failed. Now if you do get a successful result then you know that the piece that I control must be visible to you so if I'm the only piece you can see, then
a) you're incredibly lucky :) , and
b) you know I control that piece.