Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 8, 2008 8:29:55 GMT -6
Sorry about the tail thing. I guess I get my blue mutants mixed up; just be glad I didn't conflate Beast with Gonzo. :-)
Klutz's musings are good ones. Suppose Rogue depowers five players, Nights 1-5, and further suppose that two of the five are scum. Then she's lynched Day Six. Now suppose it just so happens that the last five players in the game are Apocalypse, two depowered scum, and two depowered Townies. Who wins? Apocalypse, or Rogue?
According to the rules as we now have them, both of them would win. But it seems sort of unfair to give a win to Rogue under those circumstances, especially if it's five or six days later.
I don't know. Maybe we say that Rogue has to die last, as Klutz suggests upthread. Of course, then what if the last remaining players are Rogue, Apocalypse, two depowered Townies and two depowered Scum. Rogue is lynched. Who wins?
I think Rogue's win condition should trump Poccy's in such a place; Apocalypse can hardly build a new army of horsemen if his candidates are all powerless. But that would require the following (note adjustments to Apocalypse condition):
ROGUE WIN CONDITION: All mutants, including you, are dead or depowered, and you are the last powered mutant to die.
APOCALYPSE WIN CONDITION: Sinister is dead, the Town has not won (ie, there is at least one non-Sinister scum player still alive), Scum have not won (ie, there are still more non-Scum players alive then Scum), and there are exactly four mutants, not including you, still alive.
What think? The premise would be that Apocalypse can start over with any four mutants as his new horsemen, so if he's left alone with four powered mutants, and no one else wins first, he wins. That makes the scum, Town, Rogue, and Apocalypse win conditions all mutually exclusive, which is what we want.
If we like this, then we have to tease Psylocke's win condition a bit more. We know she can win with Town or with Scum, but can she win with Rogue? With Poccy?
Klutz's musings are good ones. Suppose Rogue depowers five players, Nights 1-5, and further suppose that two of the five are scum. Then she's lynched Day Six. Now suppose it just so happens that the last five players in the game are Apocalypse, two depowered scum, and two depowered Townies. Who wins? Apocalypse, or Rogue?
According to the rules as we now have them, both of them would win. But it seems sort of unfair to give a win to Rogue under those circumstances, especially if it's five or six days later.
I don't know. Maybe we say that Rogue has to die last, as Klutz suggests upthread. Of course, then what if the last remaining players are Rogue, Apocalypse, two depowered Townies and two depowered Scum. Rogue is lynched. Who wins?
I think Rogue's win condition should trump Poccy's in such a place; Apocalypse can hardly build a new army of horsemen if his candidates are all powerless. But that would require the following (note adjustments to Apocalypse condition):
ROGUE WIN CONDITION: All mutants, including you, are dead or depowered, and you are the last powered mutant to die.
APOCALYPSE WIN CONDITION: Sinister is dead, the Town has not won (ie, there is at least one non-Sinister scum player still alive), Scum have not won (ie, there are still more non-Scum players alive then Scum), and there are exactly four mutants, not including you, still alive.
What think? The premise would be that Apocalypse can start over with any four mutants as his new horsemen, so if he's left alone with four powered mutants, and no one else wins first, he wins. That makes the scum, Town, Rogue, and Apocalypse win conditions all mutually exclusive, which is what we want.
If we like this, then we have to tease Psylocke's win condition a bit more. We know she can win with Town or with Scum, but can she win with Rogue? With Poccy?