# Evil Dead Mafia II - Teaser and Sign-Ups \[Game On!\] **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [September 29, 2010, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493 "2010-09-29T17:35:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 149
**Author:** ![USCDiver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uscdiver/32/354_2.png) [@USCDiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/USCDiver)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2961 "2010-11-15T22:28:13Z")
> [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > He said he wasn’t planning to reveal his target, and also that he suspected either myself or OAOW of being scum. I saw no sign that this meant he intended to block either of us (nor the reverse), so where’s this inconsistency you speak of? > > I imagine the scum would like very much to see me roleblocked, given the danger posed by my trap-setting power. Likewise, if he’s innocent, a roleblock on OAOW would be helpful to the badguys. If I was being uncharitable, I’d say your comment looked like an attempt to nudge brewha towards blocking one of us. After all, your implication seems clear enough: if he suspects one of us, he should block one of us. In his first post, he says “I"m really at a loss who to block tonight. I could block Texcat again” then in the very next post he mentions suspicion of McGinty and OaOW. I guess I assumed he would be blocking one of the players he thinks are scum. In fact, I would think it was unusual if he suspected McGinty and OaOW and then blocked someone else. Unless he thought that there were three remaining scum (McGinty, OaOW, and TexCat) or that TexCat was a third party. ---
**Author:** ![Mrs\_McGinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@Mrs\_McGinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrs_McGinty)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2962 "2010-11-15T22:34:52Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > So the big question is: was **MrsMcGinty** ’s action Night Two a block of me or not. As I see it, there was no block on you, but rather a block of actions on Idle. I imagine that any limited-use abilities would be wasted if used on someone I was protecting. On the other hand, those same abilities would be preserved if the ability-user himself was blocked. Obviously, I have no means by which to convince you of that, and I’m not even 100% certain that this is how it works. But I can’t think of any other explanation right now. ---
**Author:** ![Mrs\_McGinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@Mrs\_McGinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrs_McGinty)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2963 "2010-11-15T22:41:51Z")
> [@USCDiver](#): > > In his first post, he says “I"m really at a loss who to block tonight. I could block Texcat again” then in the very next post he mentions suspicion of McGinty and OaOW. I guess I assumed he would be blocking one of the players he thinks are scum. In fact, I would think it was unusual if he suspected McGinty and OaOW and then blocked someone else. Unless he thought that there were three remaining scum (McGinty, OaOW, and TexCat) or that TexCat was a third party. Yeah, as I said, it’d be uncharitable to think it really was a deliberate nudge. For one thing, it came awfully late in the day. For another, it strikes me as rather ham-fisted if that was the true intention. Always worth mentioning these things, though. Scum have been brought down by less. ---
**Author:** ![Mrs\_McGinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@Mrs\_McGinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrs_McGinty)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2964 "2010-11-15T23:15:25Z")
**Vote Texcat** My reasons, from strongest to weakest: 1. Twice it seems he’s been blocked, twice there have been no kills. 2. His role admits no cross-checking. 3. He’s behaved in roughly the same manner as I’d want to behave were I scum in this game: head down, avoid confrontation. (His reaction to being blocked the first time, for example, was cool, short, and matter-of-fact, with a half-joke to round it off: “_I am vanilla. I did not try to do anything last night. And I succeeded in doing nothing quite well, thank you._”) 4. He was one of the people who pushed for me to use up my powers killing Cookie, which surely would have appealed to the mafia. ---
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2965 "2010-11-15T23:57:52Z")
I can’t do much about being blocked or being vanilla, but… > [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > 1. He was one of the people who pushed for me to use up my powers killing Cookie, which surely would have appealed to the mafia. That’s a real mischaracterization of my post: > [@TexCat](#): > > Just a wild thought… > > Perhaps Mrs. McG could use her shotgun to kill Cookies during the day today? > > That would confirm Mrs. McG’s role, if not her alignment. It would leave us free to lynch someone else toDay. But if Mrs. McG is telling the truth, we might do better to save her shells for a trap. Also our investigators seem to be doing so well at night, we might be better off not having 2 deaths before dusk. I don’t think this was pushing you to use up your powers. I was bringing it up as a point of discussion, and I think I brought up more reasons against it than for it. ---
**Author:** ![Mrs\_McGinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@Mrs\_McGinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrs_McGinty)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2966 "2010-11-16T00:24:36Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > I don’t think this was pushing you to use up your powers. I was bringing it up as a point of discussion, and I think I brought up more reasons against it than for it. Fair enough. Pushing was too strong a word. It was more like nudging. ---
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2967 "2010-11-16T01:04:46Z")
I am beginning to believe that I am being set up by a scummy brewha, perhaps with his scummy partner OAOW. It’s odd how little actual blocking he has done. N1, he claims he was suspicious of peeker, but didn’t block him. N2, he claims he blocked OAOW, and OAOW claims he was blocked, but can’t confirm who blocked him. N3 was cancelled. N4 he failed to submit a block. N5 and N6, he claims he blocked me, a vanilla. I suspect he is not a role-blocker, and doesn’t want to be caught. I will note for the record that had he wanted to be confirmed, he could have blocked our coroner whose power is mostly going to waste these days with no deaths. This would have the added benefit of somewhat confirming Hal. I suspect the scum are targeting a protected player, and using me as a scapegoat. I bet if someone had been killed last night, brewha would have claimed to have roleblocked OAOW or McGinty. N2 he claims he blocked OAOW, but didn’t voice any suspicion of him in thread. In fact, I could find no mention of OAOW until this where he is leaning town: > [@brewha](#): > > Well, at the risk of aligning myself with the guy taking so much heat, I am leaning towards town for Wanderers. > > Mostly, because I know I’m town and he confirmed my block. If OAOW were scum, he’d (she’d? Why am I thinking he might be a she?) know that I’m not on his side and would have no reason to confirm me. > > He could say that he saw no effects on night 2. Or, he could say that he didn’t try to do anything worth blocking. The former would be calling me a liar, and the latter would just be a null tell. > > But, confirming me seems like a very unscummy thing to do. > > Though I guess if he did call me a liar and I got lyched, my death would prove tha he was lying and he’d likely be the next to go. > > And, of course, all of this is coming from the stand point of me knowing that I’m not scum. and then the complete turnaround last night:[spoiler] > [@brewha](#): > > Stanislaus got half of it right. And we now know without a doubt that he can be trusted. > > I have no reason not to trust Hal. Right now, I’m thinking that either McGinty or OAOW is scum. > > I’ll wait to see how the morning pans out before casting my vote, though. [/spoiler] I am going to repeat my last vote of brewha: > [@TexCat](#): > > I could always use $10. > > **Vote: brewha** > > For someone who was suspicious of peeker on Day 1, I find it amazing that he never voted him. I always seem to scutinize more carefully the posts of people I find suspicious, and find scummy things even when they are not scum. I find it odd that brewha claims to have been suspicious of peeker on Day 1, but was not the one who originally brought forth the suspicions on peeker. Even when the suspicions and votes started, brewha remained focused on NAF. > > Why did he vote Telcontar Day 1, if he was suspicious of peeker? Why didn’t he try to block Telcontar? > > His claim toDay, I found just a little off, but can’t put my finger on anything other than he spent a lot of time trying to convince us that he is confirmed town. He just seemed to be protesting a little too much. And to put my finger on my suspicions: > [@brewha](#): > > Well, that’s alot out in the open all at once. > > The mason thing had to come out to verify numbers, but I think it may have been a bit premature. I’m going to suggest that you investigate someone other than me - simply because I can guarantee that it will not give you any useful info. > > Of course you’re not going to believe me, \ ***even though I’ve played a very nonscummy game.** \*I’ve only voted for scum (afaik) and I have not been in on any town lynches. I even voted for Telcontar day one. But, yeah that could have been a scum bussing, right? > > Anyway, I’m fine claiming. more to follow. I never think about whether I am playing a “scummy” game or not, unless I am scum. As a vanilla town, I think about whether I am playing a good game or not. Nor do I have to point out the honesty of my answers: > [@brewha](#): > > Sorry about the multiple posts. I’m just trying to give each question an honest answer. **vote: brewha** ---
**Author:** ![brewha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@brewha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brewha)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2968 "2010-11-16T01:54:38Z")
Looks like I got some splaining to do. And I need to do it quick, so I apologize if I leave anything out. Last Night, I cooked up a plan. I had a sneaking suspicion that Hal could be scum. His power of telling whether or not the dead were killed by deadite or non deadite could a pro town power or it could simply be deadite common knowledge. I assumed that last Night, Hal would investigate a death if he were town. So, last night I blocked him - not Texcat. Of course, I didn’t want to admit that I’d blocked him so I could set my trap. Today, I’d ask him if he had gotten any new kill results. If he had, I’d know he’s scum since he would be lying. If he’d said that he’d been blocked, the only way he’d know that is if he actually tried to use his power. However, there is one teeny tiny glaring flaw to my idea. One that I didn’t realize til my recent re-read. Hal has already said that his is a day power. Which means my night block was once again worthless. Well, unless of course, Hal is scum and tried to kill last night. He does seem uncharacteristically quiet for a game like this - but that’s the only real scum tell I have on him. Oh and fearing that when this post came out I’d be called for backpedaling, I snuck a little breadcrumb in the post where I’d lied. Sorry Hal, I couldn’t think of any other way to do it but to add an unnecessary Baa Baa. I figured it was a win/win. If Hal were scum, I could catch him in a lie and it may very well be game over. If he were town, he could at least verify that I had indeed blocked him. I really didn’t want to risk blocking McGinty or OAOW since they may be town, and doing so would have a very anti town outcome. And, if we can believe that there is no more PFKs, Hal’s power has pretty much worthless now anyway. More to follow regarding Texcat’s analysis on me, but I really don’t have time tonight. I’ll get to it in the morning. ---
**Author:** ![brewha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@brewha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brewha)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2969 "2010-11-16T01:58:13Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > I will note for the record that had he wanted to be confirmed, he could have blocked our coroner whose power is mostly going to waste these days with no deaths. This would have the added benefit of somewhat confirming Hal. HA HA HA. I missed this part on my first read through your post. Great minds apparently think alike - even if the thoughts are really ill conceived. ---
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2970 "2010-11-16T02:41:18Z")
This is just way too odd. If you wanted to confirm yourself, brewha, you could have co-ordinated the block with Hal. Hal has no one to investigate, but he could have investigated a known death if you had co-ordinated with him. The lack of co-ordination definitely looks suspicious to me. I suspect you again of claiming to block someone who wasn’t doing anything. The only reason not to talk to Hal, would be because you were suspicious of him. But I don’t remember you voicing suspicions of him before. Not to mention the lying about blocking me. I still subscibe to lynch all liars. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2971 "2010-11-16T07:36:50Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > This is just way too odd. Oh yeah, I really want to hear what OaOW and MrsMcGinty did Last Night. ---
**Author:** ![One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/838e76/32.png) [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/One_And_Only_Wanderers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2972 "2010-11-16T08:17:19Z")
I was using my coroner contact on Cookies, to find out what the deal was there > [@](#): > > Cookies’ powers were as follows: > > 1. On any Night on which you do not mate (see below), you may slash, bite, or otherwise maim a target of your choice, killing them unless other powers intervene. You are not required to kill. > > 2. On Night One, you may not kill. Instead, you will choose a target and mate with them; your target will become host for your Spawn. This will have no game effect on the Host, although he or she will be aware of a bit of apparent indigestion during the Day following his/her infection. > > Thereafter, for as long as your Spawn’s Host remains alive, you may kill at Night. > > Should your Spawn’s Host be killed by any means, your Spawn will die, and the world at large will see evidence of its life and death. If this happens, your primary imperative – to reproduce – will again take over. You may choose another target and produce another Spawn on any Night following the death of a Host. Until you do, you may not kill. > > You begin with sufficient genetic material to create up to three Spawn. Should all of your genetic material be expended and wasted (ie, if you produce three Spawn and all are killed), your existence will be viewed as a miserable failure and you will destroy yourself in abject humiliation. > > 1. Your Spawn are genetically inclined to be as protective of you as you are of them. Should an attempt be made on your life by a host while a Spawn is currently active, that active Spawn will burst from its host and save you, at the cost of its own (and its host’s) life. Your Spawn will be unable to protect you in the event that a host contributes to your lynch, but it will try, killing its host in the process. Remaining Spawn will take over theor hosts when reaching maturity, 4 Nights after implantation > > Cookies would have won if she and the bearer(s) of her Spawn were a majority of those left alive. Interesting no? ---
**Author:** ![One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/838e76/32.png) [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/One_And_Only_Wanderers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2973 "2010-11-16T08:19:44Z")
On the brewha thing. I can see where what he just tried to pull is odd as hell, but I _know_ I was blocked, and no one else has claimed that ability so I have to believe brewha is a RB. We already killed one scum RB, so I am leaning town on brewha. ---
**Author:** ![brewha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@brewha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brewha)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2974 "2010-11-16T13:51:27Z")
> [@TexCat](#): > > This is just way too odd. If you wanted to confirm yourself, brewha, you could have co-ordinated the block with Hal. Hal has no one to investigate, but he could have investigated a known death if you had co-ordinated with him. The lack of co-ordination definitely looks suspicious to me. I suspect you again of claiming to block someone who wasn’t doing anything. The only reason not to talk to Hal, would be because you were suspicious of him. But I don’t remember you voicing suspicions of him before. > > Not to mention the lying about blocking me. I still subscibe to lynch all liars. Are you skimming or something? How could I have possibly coordinated a night time block of Hal’s day time power? Did you read my plan at all? I had hoped to either catch Hal in a lie - if he were scum or confirm him if he were town. Had I coordinated with him, and explained my plans, what would that had done. Let’s pretend that his was a night power - which it is not - and I had coordinated with him. A scum hal, who had no powers just scum knowledge, would have come back and said, yup, he blocked me. Consider me town. A town Hal, who had powers, would have said, yup he blocked me, consider me town. How does that help? As for your case against me, it’s just the same one you had before. Your post is pretty entertaining. You express your amazement for how little I’ve blocked, then you quote your previous post on how you express your amazement on how little I’ve blocked. Yes, I get it. You are amazed. The rest of your case basically boils down to me not playing like you would play and therefore I am scum. Well maybe I just suck at Mafia. Maybe you just suck at Mafia. But, just because I didn’t do what you would have done, does not make me scum. ---
**Author:** ![brewha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@brewha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brewha)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2975 "2010-11-16T13:59:58Z")
Oh, and I’m really not that hell bent on confirming myself. I know I had said that I would like to use my power to do so if possible. But, I’m not sure how that got construed to mean that I absolutely had to confirm myself above everything else. What I am trying to do is catch scum. A pro town night time role blocker seems to be a pretty worthless role. I dont’ know what to do with it to help the without the possibility of hurting the town. I thought my plan was a good one and a good use of my power. IF anyone has a better idea, I’m all ears. ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2976 "2010-11-16T14:02:57Z")
> [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > I was using my coroner contact on Cookies, to find out what the deal was there > > Interesting no? Well, it looks like #3 is what got **Stanislaus**. From that description, I can’t tell if **Cookies** could create more than one Spawn at a time. It sure seems like she should have been able to, based on her wincon, but it’s not explicitly stated. Also, the last sentence of #3 is confusing. Any idea what that means? Does it mean that any remaining Spawn that are out there will kill their hosts four days after they were implanted, even though **Cookies** is dead? If so, the non- **Cookies** voters should be worried (and that looks like **Nanook** and **Mrs. McGinty** according to **TexCat** ’s unofficial tally). #3 makes it sound as if anyone who was voting for her and had a spawn in them should be dead now. Since only **Stanislaus** died (and as an aside, I had to correct myself calling him **Telcontar** twice in this post–I have no idea why I get the two of them confused), either she only had one spawn out there (strange, given her wincon) or she had them in one or both of those two. ---
**Author:** ![Mrs\_McGinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@Mrs\_McGinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrs_McGinty)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2977 "2010-11-16T16:40:47Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > Oh yeah, I really want to hear what OaOW and MrsMcGinty did Last Night. I set a trap on you. > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > If so, the non- **Cookies** voters should be worried (and that looks like **Nanook** and **Mrs. McGinty** according to **TexCat** ’s unofficial tally). I voted to lynch Cookies. ---
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2978 "2010-11-16T17:25:00Z")
OAOW, Can you use your powers only once? I remember Tom Scud asking about this, but I don’t remember your answer. Your PM does not indicate that you can use them only once, but your play seems to indicate it. IIRC, you’ve used all of them now. Does that make you essentially a vanilla now? ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2979 "2010-11-16T17:36:49Z")
Uh, bufftabby needs more people in the game over on Idle. Sign up at the link below, folks: [Castle of Crossed Destinies](http://www.idlemafia.com/index.cgi?board=temp&action=display&thread=1505&page=1) ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493/2980 "2010-11-16T18:15:36Z")
OK, there’s something wrong with this, although at this point I don’t know if the wrongness is on the part of **OAOW** or **storyteller**. > [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > I was using my coroner contact on Cookies, to find out what the deal was there > > > [@](#): > > > > Cookies’ powers were as follows: > > > > 1. On any Night on which you do not mate (see below), you may slash, bite, or otherwise maim a target of your choice, killing them unless other powers intervene. You are not required to kill. > > > > 2. On Night One, you may not kill. Instead, you will choose a target and mate with them; your target will become host for your Spawn. This will have no game effect on the Host, although he or she will be aware of a bit of apparent indigestion during the Day following his/her infection. > > > > Thereafter, for as long as your Spawn’s Host remains alive, you may kill at Night. > > > > Should your Spawn’s Host be killed by any means, your Spawn will die, and the world at large will see evidence of its life and death. If this happens, your primary imperative – to reproduce – will again take over. You may choose another target and produce another Spawn on any Night following the death of a Host. Until you do, you may not kill. > > > > You begin with sufficient genetic material to create up to three Spawn. Should all of your genetic material be expended and wasted (ie, if you produce three Spawn and all are killed), your existence will be viewed as a miserable failure and you will destroy yourself in abject humiliation. > > > > 1. Your Spawn are genetically inclined to be as protective of you as you are of them. Should an attempt be made on your life by a host while a Spawn is currently active, that active Spawn will burst from its host and save you, at the cost of its own (and its host’s) life. Your Spawn will be unable to protect you in the event that a host contributes to your lynch, but it will try, killing its host in the process. Remaining Spawn will take over theor hosts when reaching maturity, 4 Nights after implantation > > > > Cookies would have won if she and the bearer(s) of her Spawn were a majority of those left alive. > > Interesting no? Item 2 says that **cookies** had to create a spawn on Night One, and that that player would have indigestion the next Day. But nobody, not even **stanislaus** , reported indigestion on Day Two, and I can’t see any reason why a player would not have, unless either storyteller forgot to tell them or they somehow magically knew what indigestion meant (that they were now a Host and would have to Die). Later in Item 2, it says “Should your Spawn’s Host be killed by any means, your Spawn will die, and the world at large will see evidence of its life and death. If this happens, your primary imperative – to reproduce – will again take over. You may choose another target and produce another Spawn on any Night following the death of a Host. Until you do, you may not kill.” Now I read “If this happens,…[y]ou may choose another target and produce another Spawn on any Night following the Death of a Host” as an example of an exception proving a rule, if anybody remembers the Master’s [column](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/731/whats-the-meaning-of-the-expression-thats-the-exception-that-proves-the-rule) on this topic. That is to say, if a sign says “Parking permitted between 9AM and 2PM Mon-Fri,” it means that parking is _not_ permitted any other time. If **cookies** could produce a Spawn on any Night following the Death of a Host, that should mean that she could _not_ produce one any other time. Yet the final statement: “ **Cookies** would have won if she and the bearer(s) of her Spawn were a majority of those left alive.” strongly suggests that there could be more than one Spawn active at a given time. Also, this activation business described in Item 3: “Remaining Spawn will take over theor hosts when reaching maturity, 4 Nights after implantation.” I’m not sure what Day toDay is, but I’m pretty sure that it is is Day 6 or 7. If **stanislaus** was implanted on Night One, he should have been fully Spawn yestereday, yet he pushed for **Cookies** ’ lynch, plus the color showed the Spawn bursting out of his chest when he died. I don’t think Stanislaus was fully Spawn yesterDay. What I’m driving at here is that this whole **Cookies** description is self-contradictory and very confusing. The fact that **Stanislaus** never reported indigestion is strange, especially when he did complain of indigestion in the color just prior to his death. So I’m wondering, is this description of **Cookies** ’ powers real, or made up by **OAOW**? If it’s real (but confusing and somewhat inconsistent), then we need to take a serious look at **Nanook** and **Total Lost** , one or both of whom is now almost certainly active Spawn, because they seem to be the only ones who didn’t vote for **Cookies** to be lynched, if **TexCat** ’s tally is to be believed (she herself Final Voted **Cookies** in post 2843). Also, according to OAOW’s role claim in post 2612: > [@](#): > > Friendly coroner: Allows you to choose any dead player, and you will learn the nature of that player’s power, as well as how (s)he used it on the Night (s)he died. There was nothing in **Wanderer** ’s post indicating how Cookies used her powers the Day she died. Again, I don’t know if this is **Wanderer** ’s strangeness or **storyteller** ’s. The whole thing is rather suspicious. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493.md?page=148) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evil-dead-mafia-ii-teaser-and-sign-ups-game-on/555493.md?page=150)