I think there's a little wiggle room there...

Checking in. I do not like to eat brains.

Checking IN.

For the Record. I think you're all stinking Zombies or Rain Gear.

Stay outta my freaking HEAD!

I am Chief Rum. That is not Police Chief Rum. Or is it? Can I even say that? I guess not. Unless I am not the chief. But I am Chief. I give up.

So the zombies will be the ones acting normal? I'm not sure how to capitalize on that.

OK, a whole lot of nothing to go after in the initial posts this game. I agree with the presiding thought on the Chief's voting record being especially important but I'm not sure what the other takeaways are from the early discussion, frankly.

As with just about every Day 1, nothing becomes interesting until we start to vote. Anyone have any new ideas on the best way to carry out a Day 1? I tend to subscribe to the two candidate runoff, which may be a better option than usual this game with two factions yielding positive results for STARS. Better chance of having someone we want in the crosshairs as opposed to two random villagers/STARS.

I like the votes every day to be based around a small number of candidates as well since that is easier to track down the road than everyone spread out across 10 different people. I however am not going to trap myself on day 1 being forced to choose between two people who have some possibility of being a decent contributer during the game.

In most games there is usually one side that wants to eliminate those that do sound analysis, those that help drive -meaningful- discussion and those that are active and/or experienced. My goal at least on day 1 is likely to not do that team's work for them.

I might not go for the quietest player, or I might not go for the newest player.. However I'll likely consider all of those things when picking my day one vote. I think its a tad early just yet to be narrowing down to a few candidates to choose from right now. I'm more curious to see how people check in, and what discussion people are bringing to the table early in the game.

I don't know that there is a ton that we can discuss on day 1, however I don't really feel like sitting in day 5 or 6 with a bunch of people who won't be trying to work together to figure out voting records or discuss behavior patterns :)

Okay, I got my role. Nothing special to see here. Just checking in and saying hi

Hello, all. KWhit checking in.

I think it's such a crapshoot on day one that I will likely be voting for someone quiet. I feel that it's a mistake to lose a someone this early who is actually contributing to the discussion. It's tough to get a read on the quiet ones later in the game, so it hurts our chances of victory if we keep them around.

Heading off to work for the day, but I will be back before deadline. Can't what to read the usual nonsensical reasonings for voting for people on Day 1 (to which I will then add my own).

So in my pre-game reading of the rules, there were some other interesting dynamics in this game to make it a bit different than typical games.

Normally there is 1 bodyguard, 1 seer and perhaps some type of witness role in a game. This game due to three factions, there are quite many more walking around.

Stars have 2 roles that can learn faction information and 1 who can act as a witness type role from what I can tell. Umbrella has 1 that can learn information and both have 1 bodyguard each.

So where in normal games it is a percentage play to figure out the odds of player X being guarded, this game that chance is increased. I wouldn't be suprised to see a slightly different night kill game plan this game due to the extra bodyguards out there.

Checking in ( I got blasted for not doing this last game). Nothingh special going on. I agree day one is a crapshoot. Since I will be gone all day then I am going to see Flogging Molly tonight!!! I have to put an early vote in.

LYNCH HOOPSGUY

thats for wanting to gun me dowm last game when I was your teammate. :)

Hello, boys and girls. I'm here! Spleenie is 3-0 in WW. Let's keep that tradition alive!

I am ok with that as long as you are on my team.

Thanks for that, Lathum. I spare you, allowing you to move on to ruling that cowpoke town and you use that as a reason to vote for me. Makes perfect sense.

Alan, while I think that getting our votes down to two candidates makes sense, I have no good thoughts on who those two candidates should be. I do not have any special insight on my team members.

It seems like Lathum is nominating you to be one of the candidates. I take it you don't agree with that :)

Works for me. Hoops is candidate #1. :D

If that is how people want today to play out, so be it. However, I'm with STARS and there are going to be two factions that will know I'm not part of their faction and will be more than willing to cast votes towards me. So including a member of STARS in the runoff is already less than ideal. Statistically, I don't think it is likely for us to get two members of STARS in a runoff, but if you choose to make me candidate #1 then it becomes a lot more likely.

OK, here comes the math, working with Alan's guesswork for faction numbers.
19 players, 11-5-3 ratio to start
Chance of having two STARS members in initial two-man runoff = 11/19 * 10/18 = 32%
Chance of having a second STARS member in initial two-man runoff after having first candidate (me) as member of STARS = 10/18 = 56%

So we are giving away a 24% edge by making a bad first decision and giving the other factions a chance to vote out a player who is generally pretty good at analysis as a good guy. Obviously I don't like this one bit.

There is a player who will not be voting for me who knows that I am speaking the truth about being on STARS.

Heya and good morning all! Still trying to muddle through the rules and what. Will post more later when I have more to say.

-Anxiety

I won't be in the thread until later this afternoon. I have a feeling hoops is playing it straight this game. (I'll vote for the guy who killed me last, as I owe him one.)

vote st. cronin

I'm already a bit confused as to the rules and the factions, so I am going to spend a bit more time reading over them. I'll be over on page 1 for a while if anyone needs me.

another player checking in

this game is alredy confusing with 3 factions.

Alan - I'm rereading some of your analysis so I have it straight and based on my gut the last two games I feel you've already started to earn some trust. I don't think a non-Stars player would be this helpful this early.

I realized that there is another implication in my math earlier that I think is pretty important here. If we start with 11 members of STARS then the likelihood of having at least opponent in the mix, with a randomly selected starting two, is 68%. If we start with 10 members of STARS that number moves to 74%.

With that in mind, I am vehemently opposed to being the first member of the runoff - we give away way too much edge on the first day. Normally we are playing with less than a 40% chance of getting a "wolf" in a 19 person game with two factions, assuming 4 wolves.

Obviously anyone else can make the same argument and then cite my statistics as their rationale, but I'll leave that for others to judge.

Consider my suspicion of Lathum, Alan T, and Spleen dialed up a little above the norm for the initial vote and the whimsical suggestions that I would make a fine candidate.

My suggestion was all in good fun. I don't think I will be voting for you on Day 1. So, don't sweat it, homie.

I am going to assume that any player who casts an early vote is either zombie, umbrella, or police chief. Regular stars players will likely be looking for clues that somebody is the police chief. That said ...

vote hoopsguy

SnDvls - have you ever played with Alan when he has been a wolf? I would expect nothing but helpfulness from him early in the game as a wolf. There should be plenty of others here who can back me up on that assertion.

Doesn't make him a "wolf" in any way, shape, or form. But I would be pretty cautious about assigning him trust based on helpfulness on Day 1.

So, using your analysis, you're a zombie, umbrella or the police chief.

You cast the 2nd vote.
The Police Chief knows that I'm with STARS.

So where does that leave you?

Dola - 3rd vote, as Fouts voted for Cronin.

My thoughts exactly.

This post is rhetoric, not analysis. Play along with my theory - either Lathum is the police chief, or he is not Stars. If he is the police chief, then you are either umbrella or zombie. If he is not Stars, then you could still be either umbrella or zombie (since I don't think they know which is which), but if you turn out to be stars, then Lathum gets lynched tomorrow.

Of course, it's also possible that Lathum is just regular stars and wanted to cast a vote. But that leaves me with making a random day 1 vote based on nothing.

I have seen him do it before yes, but here it just feels different to me. Anyhow all I said was he started to earn some trust, not in a COT just yet.

I think we might be again reading too much into some of this. However, Lathum's quick vote for hoops does concern me. I would figure that if we were all on the same side we'd want to keep the best players alive to help us, and I don't think there is any doubt that hoops is quite good at this game. Multiple people have also talked about voting for quiet people on day 1, and here we are again, with a hoops/cronin showdown looming over our heads. Maybe we should slow down here for a minute, go over this again before we start maiming people...but I have to admit that cronin's "rhetoric" post makes some sense to me.

Of course, his day 1 thinking last game probably made some sense too, and it was dead wrong.

Cronin, I think you are assuming a more aggressive game by the Police Chief than I would expect from the role. They are likely going to make pro-STARS votes every time out. They have information that they cannot reveal, but obviously helps the team out if we can figure out their identity. But their value increases as the game progresses and the impact of a wrong decision is magnified. So I would expect them to try and blend in early, rather than drawing attention to themselves.

You are suggesting that Lathum - by all accounts a pretty solid player who thinks through scenarios - would come after me in this role with the first vote in an attempt to identify himself to his constituents immediately. I have the luxury of knowing this is not the case, but I think anyone who thinks through the role and the player would conclude that Lathum is NOT the Police Chief.

Actually, screw all that. Lathum said he was gonna be gone all day. This is too overt to be a wolf move like that. Now I have other kinds of alarms going off. It's too early for all this.

Or Lathum is honestly not going to be here most of the day and had to put his vote out early and you are using that to try to have an excuse to vote for hoops. Considering you have this breakdown on what Lathum is or isn't and that led you to voting for Hoops as a second vote on him rather than voting for Lathum whom no one had voted for yet..

Let me clarify - I have the luxury of knowing Lathum is not the Police Chief by virtue of his vote for me.

Anyone who does not know that I'm with STARS, but takes the time to consider the role and how Lathum might play it, should pretty quickly conclude that Lathum is NOT the Police Chief.

To be honest, I am tweaking you a bit. Its pretty easy to suggest there be a run off of two candidates on day 1, but then not have any suggestions on who those candidates should be. Then when your neck starts getting closer to the noose, that two candidate run off isnt as appealing to you. :)

I already have stated that I like narrowing down the selection to a few candidates to help us judge voting history from (whether 2 or 3 candidates). I also have stated what type of player I would like to lynch today, and you aren't in that description. You should know from my previous posts that if I voted for you today it would go against everything I already stated today. :)

In terms of Lathum, after having played with him as a wolf last game, I would suggest that putting votes on him is an effective way to encourage participation even when he is "going to be away all day". Yes, he is out for stretches of the day but my perception was that he definitely was willing to give the villagers time to trip over themselves.

I have no idea if Lathum is a good guy or a bad guy here. I just know he is not the Police Chief based on his vote. And that voting for me on Day 1, based on specious logic (is there any other kind on Day 1? fair point) that I considered killing him last game is foolish.

I'm going to believe in hoops this game because of odds. :) He was a wolf last game and that game was pretty big. This game is also pretty big, so him being a wolf is pretty slim.

I agree that there is a good possibility that Lathum is NOT the police chief. I think there is much less probability that he is regular Stars.

My own point of view is that as regular stars, the last thing I want to do is cast a random vote on somebody. The only way for the day 1 vote to make sense is to lay back and let the umbrella/zombie/chief pick suspects - then day 2, we go through that info to see what we see.

Yeah, referring to what hoops was saying, I don't think the chief would be so brazen as to start pulling stunts like that immediately. He's going to be too valuable to our long term plans to take the chance it massively backfires. Furthermore, I would like to think that the people in these games are honest about their real lives and about when they aren't going to be around -- gaming to that degree seems over our unwritten line, personally. So I'm inclined to think the vote doesn't mean anything.

Lathum never seems to be a heavy posted in early games from what I know of him. I agree that putting him on the block usually increases his participation, but he usually sits back and lets things develop early on.

This alone doesn't make him good or bad this game, but lathum really isn't the type of day 1 vote I'm looking for today. I have in my mind who I think I would probably vote for, but I am waiting for them to check in this game first before I decide for sure today. (Bulletsponge)

Switching topics a bit, is there any reason that Umbrella would want to create Nemesis? It would "take care of" a STARS member, but it would also create another zombie which might eat them. I'm not sure I get the point of this...

I disagree somewhat with this reasoning. This game I feel the odds of him being someone "bad" is bigger than in most games, despite the number of players.

In this game I wouldn't be suprised to see 40% of the players on some "bad" faction (either zombies or Umbrella) so I think its actually quite a decent possibility for any player in this game to be bad. I don't buy the whole arguement that a larger game means automatically less chance he is bad.

The problem with this is that it only works if other people are going to think along your same lines. A lot of day ones involve people just throwing things out there, and we can rest assured they aren't all going to be the police chief or a non-good guy. Are we just going to start killing people for independent thoughts on day one?

Main reasons I can think of is to nullify a stars bodyguard or perhaps there is some unknown information about how nemesis works that would make it appealing to them.

I agree that I don't necessarily assume that the umbrella team would be happy about there being more zombies.

Random thought: They would know who Nemesis is and could try to get him....taken care of if he started doing goofy crap.

If you really think so, then vote for me. I know for sure the police chief won't vote for me.

I don't have a breakdown, just a theory - one I hinted at last night. Normally I like to get a vote out there right away, but this game I waited to see who moved first.

Random.org cares not about who was what last game :)

I pretty much already said how I feel the chief likely would be most benefitial to work. You and Hoops can go back and read that, but what I said basically agrees that the chief's biggest usage probably comes from his death as long as he can live several days. The chief likely is probably trying to -not- draw attention to himself.

I think alot of Cronin's points this morning have been forced and using faulty logic to get from point A to point B. I'm not quite sure what to make of that, but I think it would be rather hasty to jump on him to vote day 1 for just trying to come up with some thoughts. At least he is contributing, and good or bad it gives us things to look back on and find later if he is contradicting himself or not.

Allright. I'm finding it hard to get much out of this other than a suspicion that Sndvls and Alan might be on the same side. Which means they know about each other, so they can't be STARS. Or since it would be pretty silly for bad guys align themselves this early..so that means that at least one of them is probably allright.

Just thinking outloud, proving that I've learned nothing from my experiences in this game to date.

I'll be checking in from time to time throughout the day, as this is shaping up as a rough day. Perhaps I'll host a WW game someday. The theme would be Sarbanes Oxley "Some of you are clearly out of compliance!"

I agree that I could be completely wrong. I'm just saying that as I thought about my role (regular stars) and the rules of the game, I realized that there was no way I was going to vote first. If any other stars had a similiar thought, I'd like to hear it.

I already stated that I doubt i would vote for you unless some compelling reason comes forth. Disagreeing with your reasoning on day 1 isnt necessarily a compelling reason to me.

I just disagree with you is all, and still think you are using faulty logic. Hoops (who you voted for) did not move first, Lathum did. yet you used that opportunity as an excuse to pile onto hoops and push him closer to being a day 1 run off candidate rather than put a vote on an original person whom has no votes.

I dunno, my usual assumption when someone comes out and posts what Sndvls does is that Sndvls is -NOT- on my team and is just trying to buddy up with me to make me not look at him closer. If they think Im a good guy, then they must be a good guy too right???

Doesn't always happen like that in Werewolf. Of course I pretty much am a very suspicious person in these games and have a very hard time ever trusting anyone. For me its always a case of what have you done for me lately.

Cronin, I'm inclined to believe you're just pushing some well-intentioned by bad ideas. For now. As last game showed, things like that do tend to get people killed on day 1, so it makes me think you aren't a bad guy. I'm with alan's voting idea for now.

Where were you in Lathum's game, where Blade got the bandwagon on me for "coming up with some thoughts?"

:D

I'm open to whatever other ideas people have, but I would like to hear what people thought when they found out they were regular Stars.

With two camps of wolves, or at least a camp of wolves and a camp of zombie sympathisers, I don't think the odds necessarilly bear that out.

Hey, you started a voting trip on me just for trying to get something done day one :P

dola

I'm open to voting for Lathum, as well.

Well All I can say is I have been there before. I very rarely am a night kill by bad guys because usually the good guys find some reason to want to lynch me in the first few days. I talk alot in WW games, throw out alot of ideas (some of them better than others) and I want to encourage others to contribute with meaningful conversation.

If you are on my team or not, I do not know. You are however contributing to this discussion which for me is enough to want me to allow you a pass on day 1 until we have more information.

Yes, and then I changed my vote, and backed you to the bitter end. If only others had listened to me.:(

You are either behind about 15 posts or just repeating what I said! :)

Oh and if you ever run a game based on Sarbanes Oxley, I'll vote to lynch you every day regardless if Im allowed to or not.

I would probably vote for you before I voted for Lathum. Right now on Day 1 however I would rather avoid voting for you, Lathum or Hoops.

I'll be back later, in time to change my vote if necessary. I'm curious to see how this plays out.

All hail the SEC!

All hail the SEC!

Dola, bastard message board.

I agree with everyone who has said that being good/bad in a previous game has no bearing upon the current one.

If I was going to cast a vote for someone at this point it would be Lathum 1st, then Cronin 2nd. Both of those people have cast votes on me so I know that they are not the Police Chief. If you take that role away and add it to the Umbrella/Zombies I would expect that I have a 50% chance of hitting a bad guy using this as my only voting criteria.

I sometimes think you give people too much credit for planning before the game starts. :)

Again, I posted something that isn't quite a complete thought.

If we go back to the 11-5-3 ratio then random selection indicated 8/19 chance of hitting a bad guy. No one will vote for themselves, but members of stars have an 8/18 chance of hitting a bad guy. Now if you know someone is not the Police Chief, your odds have improved to 8/17. That is what I meant above with the 50% chance of getting a good vote in based on removing the Police Chief.

If you are being truthful and are Stars, then lathum would not be the chief
If Lathum is not the chief and we assume there are 10-11 Stars players, it means That was 9-10% of the possible Stars roles. If a normal player has a 53-58% chance of being a stars, and everything up to this point about Lathum is true, it would still give him a 47-53% chance of being stars.

Now that sounds like a pretty decent reason for -you- to vote them if you so choose, but then the remainder of us have to take alot on faith to join in on that 5-6% voting advantage. I am not entirely sure that I want to condemn a contributing player on day 1 based on the faith of one person who has a ~55% chance of being good's statement that player B has a 53% chance of being bad.

I think there are just waaay too many ifs in your statement to jump for on day 1. Now this type of data is what we want to keep track of over the course of 2-3 days and it becomes something meaningful.

Start? That's kind of the norm lately, unfortunately. Seems to me that most day one showdowns are usually just due to reading too much into initial thoughts, and are usually good/good.

That said, with three teams I think we actually have a better chance than normal of getting a bad guy in a runoff today.

It's day 1, usually a misunderstanding leads to a bandwagon onto a good guy. :-/

Yeah. I'm suspicious of cronin right now, but I'm going to give him a chance to earn some trust back. If we're going to force people to put their opinions out there we have to start by letting the people that do speak live unless we have a really good reason to kill them.

Statistical fallacy... roles in the games are independent events. :)

As regular STARS, the only one out of that lot who is going to pick someone worth voting for is the chief. Umbrella will be figuring that anyone who isn't them works well, zombies the same, meaning that aside from the chief, the baddies are most likely to pick STARS. It's to the STARS favor to drive the voting so that there's a better chance of picking up a zombie or Umbrella.

Gang is all here - but I'm out for about 90 minutes as work calls.

I would encourage people to find two other candidates to run off, with me not being in the mix. If that is not how it works, then I'll have a more exciting Day 1 than I wanted to have and hopefully some good information will emerge for later in the game.

I think all this pushing for some of the more contributing, experienced players is a bit baffling to me. I already stated the profile of the type of player I likely will vote for, and gave the name of who it likely will be.

As of right now, only two people haven't checked in since roles. Saldana and Bulletsponge. I think pretty highly of Saldana's analysis usually when I have been on the wrong team before, so in hoping he is on my team this time, I wont be voting for him on day 1 at least (with the hopes he's just busy today and will be here more in the future to help).

Just to get things going in what i feel is a better direction, I'll go with what my thought has been all along.

Vote Bulletsponge

Now with that said, I think the advantages to this vote is:

- Bullet is one of the newer players in the game
- Bullet usually is fun to play with but I think I want someone who later in the game is more likely to be digging through posts trying to trap someone on the other team.

The disadvantages to this vote:

-Typically an inactive player seems to have better odds of being good (most often but not always, players who are with cool roles or wolves will be active from the start)
- There is still a ~53% chance that he is good

Its a day 1 vote, but this vote is anything but random. There are my reasons for the vote, and they aren't just because so and so looked at me wrong in WW game 14!

Since I stink at the internet, let me try that again.
Vote Bulletsponge

It is interesting how the most active players tend to be the most in danger at the beginning of a game. Normally this comes down to A votes for B because A doesn't know what else to do, B votes for A because B is good so A must be bad...bandwagons commence. One of these games I hope to have a bad role so I can enjoy the chaos rather than be frustrated by it.

People only fall into the chaos if they allow themselves to. Like I responded to Hoops, him voting for Lathum might make sense for him mathematically at this point, however for the remainder of the players its a below 50% play and thus no better than your start off odds of voting for anyone. So anyone jumping on the well player B voted for Player A and I believe him more are just fooling themselves.

Only 3 ways to really handle today's vote:

1) Pure randomness - doesn't really help anything at all other than making sure you have a vote out there

2) Trying to achieve some goal for the day (obviously Zombies or umbrella people will vote for people not in their group, but everyone in all three groups can vote for people who they don't think they would help their cause on day 5-6-7)

3) Revenge reasoning for being voted for earlier in the day. Hoops gave a good example of why it might be logical for -him- alone to do that, but I am not sure what it accomplishes for the entire team.

Random thought -- with three factions, two of whom know all their members, it will be as interesting to see who people don't mention as much as who they do....

Since we seem to get a villager more often than not in these games I am gonna just pop in a vote on someone at random. I have no real reason to vote for them, but I am afraid we are in a good vs good vote off. So I
Vote Fouts

Doesn't this cover about 90% of werewolf history? :)

Out of curiosity who are we in a good vs good vote off between?

Well.. guess I was too slow to ask ntndeacon that.

That vote doesn't make much sense to me either. Well not as much the vote as the comment with it. I currently have the vote as:

(2) Hoopsguy - Lathum (112), st.cronin (125)
(1) St.cronin - Fouts (120)
(1) Bulletsponge - Alan (180)
(1) Fouts - Ntndeacon (184)

So I'm pretty puzzled at who the good vs good run off ntndeacon referenced is between right now. :)

This is very possibly a totally innocent comment, but I always find it suspicious when someone highlights their innocence in this way. Probably means nothing, but I want to get a vote out there and right now I have nothing else to go on. I will likely move this vote if something interesting presents itself.

A couple of other thoughts:

• I don't think Lathum is the Police Chief. That seems like too overt a play to make on day one. I also think it's kind of unlikely that he is a bad guy as they usually don't want to make the first vote.
• I don't believe we should vote for Hoops without a decent reason. He's always active in these games and provides good analysis.

Kwhit, if you were meaning to vote, I think you missed it. (I can't talk because I flubbed my vote post earlier myself)

Hehe. Oops.

Yeah, so umm...

Vote BrianD.

After reading some of your early analysis I dont believe I am smart enough for this game. Also, it seems we have there experts here that are going to blow some of us newer folk away. I am going back to the first page to reread the rules, but right now I have no grasp of who to vote for besides NOT voting for Lathum, hoops, alant or st. cronin

I've been posting alot today, but I'm just trying to see if an experiment works this game. Don't take my constant posting to mean that I know anything more than anyone else. Your gut instinct might be just as right as mine, or even more right than mine. All I've been trying to push for today is for people to not fall into the normal day 1 trap of a lynch between two vocal good guys.

Instead, we might end up in a different day 1 lynch of a different good guy! :)

But seriously, I'm just calling people out on thoughts that are posted that don't seem to make full sense to me and just trying to admittedly push the vote away from some of the more solid players on day 1. (or even possibly day 2)

Okay, right now I am having trouble understanding Nemesis and Infector. Are those two people that are already out there? OR are they created later? And the zombies get 100% chance if they try to kill somebody together. What is the sense of not trying to kill people together then? What are the advantages for one zombie going at it alone?

Okay, so i am reading down and I see that Ozwell can change you into a Nemesis.... my fault.

So as a member of STARS I am pretty much again the zombies and Umbrella?

Yeah, I'm with alan, my main thing right now is making sure we don't kill people that are putting out ideas just because we might disagree with some of their conjecture. Kill them after they do it repeatedly.

The infector exists, but one of the Umbrella guys has to kidnap someone to turn them into Nemesis.

Just thought of another reason for why umbrella should create nemesis, related to "taking care of all of STARS" - by kidnapping a STARS member and turning them into nemesis they are getting a night kill against their goal of having to get rid of all the STARS members.

LSG, you have been plenty smart in the games I have watched you play. Maybe not as wordy as some of us, but your instincts on who to vote for have been very good. Even in the Saw game, the instincts were good but you just were not able to sell the idea enough at the end.

From the rules, the nemesis is not currently in the game. He is brought to the game by Ozwell Spencer (Umbrella) kidnapping a player and turning him into the nemesis. It's been debated so far whether or not umbrella would even want the nemesis around at all.

The infector is a type of zombie who in addition to participating in the night kills also has the ability to infect someone starting night 3. If the player is vaccinated however, the infector loses all ability to do future infection. Infecting someone is this game's version of a conversion.

There are a couple of reasons that come to my mind on why the zombies would or wouldn't do the 2 zombie kills for 100% chance:

1) Bigger chance of being discovered
2) Bodyguard block has bigger chance of preventing them from any action that night

On the positive side for them, it gives them a sure kill by teaming up. I've already done the math in my head to figure out what likely is the better percentage for them, but i don't feel like sharing that in this thread.

I'm also very amused by Tyrith having 14 posts under his name, when he will probably have 2x that many on Day 1 of this game :)

OK, back to trying to figure out today.

Basically thats right. Stars win if all the zombies are killed (regardless if umbrella is around or not). However its probably in the Stars interest to just kill umbrella members too as they are actively trying to kill the Stars.

Winning conditions are:

Zombies kill everyone (to get to a 1:1 ratio of zombies vs everyone else)
Umbrella kill stars
Stars kill zombies.

I already have 20 posts in the thread...yeah, moving to our own board kicking my post count in the face. :)