|
Post by storyteller0910 on Aug 14, 2014 13:29:50 GMT -5
1. Day is over. I can't actually post dusk until around 3:30, but voting is done and patricia has been lynched.
2. I really, really don't want to be obfuscatory, but I don't understand your question. Can you clarify it (bearing in mind that I can't comment on specific cases)?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 14, 2014 13:50:37 GMT -5
Because she has a commanding lead and there are more than one who need killing. This is not a new approach. Doesn't make it any more right. The scum motivation not to switch votes, into a bandwagon, to garner fake town cred, is very high. Bullshit. I'm on record saying lynch her. You can quote that stuff all day long.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Aug 14, 2014 13:52:03 GMT -5
2. I really, really don't want to be obfuscatory, but I don't understand your question. Can you clarify it (bearing in mind that I can't comment on specific cases)? Sorry, the request is: 1. to confirm the definition of a covenant as described in the rules: "any group of one or more players collectively dedicated to the same goal" 2. to clarify "collectively dedicated to the same goal", could, for example, a merchant who needs to amass 10 souls in order to win share a covenant with another merchant who independently needs to amass 10 other souls in order to win?
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Aug 14, 2014 13:59:52 GMT -5
And, as I think about it, that scenario is sort of like Mahaloth's covenant in the last game so maybe Swammer's claim isn't as fishy as I originally thought. Meeko's on the other hand...
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Aug 14, 2014 14:31:24 GMT -5
I thought the meaning was clear. Suppose another Player, say Guiri for definiteness, is in the same Covenant as Swammi. Then, I infer from my own role PM that Guiri's win-con will be Guiri's survival. You may ask why we are a single Covenant if we have separate win-cons. Ask story, not me. Rightly or wrongly, I'm trying to leverage this Covenant into a quasi-Masonry. Right, just like "Guiri's goal is to win the game" and "Swammer's goal is to win the game" so they should both be in the same covenant??? I didn't have a problem with the handshake, although I suspect it's not as meaningful as you make it out to be, but the rules pose a significant doubt on your claim. Story, please clarify your definition of a Covenant as "any group of one or more players collectively dedicated to the same goal – every player belongs to a Covenant (only one at a time), and his or her Covenant usually defines his or her win condition." - can the "same goals" be independent events that use similar terminology but have no relation whatsoever in terms of players from the same covenant winning the game?Did you miss the word usually up there guiri? Storyteller does not usually add meaningless words in his rules posts.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Aug 14, 2014 14:34:14 GMT -5
And I missed the last page, doh
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Aug 14, 2014 15:48:02 GMT -5
2. I really, really don't want to be obfuscatory, but I don't understand your question. Can you clarify it (bearing in mind that I can't comment on specific cases)? Sorry, the request is: 1. to confirm the definition of a covenant as described in the rules: "any group of one or more players collectively dedicated to the same goal" 2. to clarify "collectively dedicated to the same goal", could, for example, a merchant who needs to amass 10 souls in order to win share a covenant with another merchant who independently needs to amass 10 other souls in order to win? 1. Yes 2. Yes
|
|