A thought occurs about time-lag - it’s 11.32am my time, but what time does the board think it is?
Fine - I’m five hours ahead of board time (EST), as usual. I wasn’t sure if the various DST shifts had temporarily changed that.
Good point about the time difference. I’m eight hours ahead of you, Stanislaus, or 13 hours ahead of EST.
One thing: shouldn’t the total number of spies be public?
Okay! Her we go.
Greetings, fellow heroic members of the heroic resistance. Our mission tonight is to, I don’t know, let’s say blow up a bank. Burn the filthy lucre!
I’m going to nominate three people who are not me to go on this mission. Why? Reasons.
Storyteller
TexCat
Mahaloth
Anybody have any comments before I send my PM and put this up for a vote?
Why not nominate yourself?
According to the rulebook, there should be four spies in a ten-player game.
And, yeah, why not nominate yourself?
Yes, that was my mistake. I should have revealed the number of spies. There are 4 spies in the game.
Reasons!
I’m hoping to randomly snag two spies in my group of three, which will then force them to play a WIFOM game of “do I or don’t I sabotage the mission.” The best-case scenario is that they both sabotage, and then we know that in a group of three players, two of them are spies.
I assume we’re going to play with Mafia no-edit rules.
Obviously three-for-three would be even better.
I guess that’s as good a reason as any.
I like that. I was thinking in terms of “Well, obviously I’d nominate myself, because I know I can trust me.” But that’s because I hadn’t worked out if you can’t have 0 spies, better to have many.
Confirming. Not available until tonight to play, though.
Dang! I read my PM about this game too late. Next time.
PM rec’d.
I’m suspicious that JBravo isn’t going on his own mission. This mission with only 3 players on it is the most likely one to succeed, because it’s less likely to have a spy on it and because the spies may be less willing to fail it and expose themselves as one of only three. I don’t like that JBravo seems to be setting it up to fail.
Johnny Bravo, did you miss this on the first page, or do you disagree with HC’s group meta think?
Bolding mine.
It’s a viable meta, but in that case it doesn’t matter whether I nominate myself or not.
And since the spies can’t communicate with one another, they can’t agree to use that tactic or not. It’s WIFOM all the way down for them.
Plus, spies have to fail a mission at some point. At the point when they have to do that, it’s better if there are two or more on the mission, because then they’ll run the risk of either multiple exposure or failing to fail. So (assuming Johnny Bravo **is *Resistance) this is a good tactic generally; just because we don’t expect the spies to fail mission one doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use it.
If JB is a spy then he has the option of picking of picking himself or a fellow spy and it doesn’t matter which - I’m mildly, mildly inclined to give him some Resistance cred (almost said townie!) simply because not picking himself has led to criticism.
The meta in one group isn’t necessarily the meta in another. I’ve even used this to screw with groups as a spy. I won’t say too much so I don’t give spies ideas, but on a board with no meta, all rules are off anyway.
I’ll also toss out that I see new groups vote to accept proposed groups far too often.
That said, I don’t like the group and would oppose it if officially put forward. I trust me.
Quoting so it’s not an edit, but my experience with the meta is for Avalon, which is a reskinning of Resistance with a few special roles.
It’s a viable tactic even for the base game, without the special roles or plot cards.