Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:23 pm
Maybe the axe murderer person really wanted to hit someone else but that person was protected by the equivelent to the shamen/archangel for the axe murder. So the part about Ixistant not supposed to be there could mean that the axe murder really wanted to hit someone else, but couldn't because they were protected.
Of course I could also be completely wrong and we have some other weird random role like the psychitrist we didn't even know about and somehow they intervened and did something. Who knows?
But I agree with you, that part sounds like the blinded part that happened to Neopetsmom (sounds like it in terms of it sounds like something happened to intervene and Scott is giving us a clue we don't understand).
Of course I could also be completely wrong and we have some other weird random role like the psychitrist we didn't even know about and somehow they intervened and did something. Who knows?
But I agree with you, that part sounds like the blinded part that happened to Neopetsmom (sounds like it in terms of it sounds like something happened to intervene and Scott is giving us a clue we don't understand).
Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:36 pm
Well, if the person the stabber tried to kill had been protected, it would've been a "failed stabbing" and no stabbing would take place. Like last game, had I tried to shoot someone who was protected, there would've been a "failed shooting"
Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:45 pm
ARGH. I knew it, I knew we shouldn't have voted for Qanda 
Ah well. I don't have time to read through the pages, so I'll do a majority, and vote for:
Vote: Yesitish
EDIT: Is confused, ahhh, I understand, I put Yesh instead of yes. Changed ^^;
Ah well. I don't have time to read through the pages, so I'll do a majority, and vote for:
Vote: Yesitish
EDIT: Is confused, ahhh, I understand, I put Yesh instead of yes. Changed ^^;
Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:53 pm
okamotosan18 wrote:Well, if the person the stabber tried to kill had been protected, it would've been a "failed stabbing" and no stabbing would take place. Like last game, had I tried to shoot someone who was protected, there would've been a "failed shooting"
Now I remember the name of the role... It's called flip-flopper (you can check the rules and the commentary thread, Qanda mentioned it)
So the flip-flopper probably switched Ixistant and a person X, the axe murderer targeted X but killed Ixistant instead.
Flip-flopper, I just hope you know what you're doing. Ixistant was innocent, and if you protected the Angel/Mystic/etc it's very good, but if X was a baddie...
Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:10 pm
Wind wrote:AutumnElf wrote:ScottNak wrote:ScottNak reenters the group, still a bit rattled after killing their shaman, but even more afraid of who had died this night.
ScottNak notices that one of the rooms the people reside in has been broken into. Lying on the bed, dead with an axe in his back, is Ixistant. "Hrm... that's quite odd though, Ixistant shouldn't really be here... But there he is... dead."
Dead people can't talk now, can they?
Thanks for quoting it... I noticed something interesting, when Scott says that Ixistant shouldn't be there. Is it possible that he was switched with someone?
I think a similar comment was made in another game at IDB, where Qanda was the bus driver and changed the seats of 2 players...
Why did you execute Qanda? He was just saying his suspicions. That's why I'm afraid to say mine.
Anyway since Okamoto is so sure
Vote: YesItIsh
And if he's not a mafia we'll be sure that Oka's bad.
Me? I changed my vote at last minute because since there was no majority, I figured an excution is better than no excution.
But at that moment I had forgotten the governor would choose if there was no majority ._____. (Last game, if there was no majority, there would be no excution)
[Edit]
okamotosan18 wrote:Well, if the person the stabber tried to kill had been protected, it would've been a "failed stabbing" and no stabbing would take place. Like last game, had I tried to shoot someone who was protected, there would've been a "failed shooting"
Actually, I remember from last game that werewolves/mafias sent a list of three people so if the top one was protected, the second one would be mauled/shot instead and so on.
Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:16 pm
I was thinking about that, and it's possible I was switched.
Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:25 pm
Switched for what?
Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:28 pm
okamotosan18 wrote:I was thinking about that, and it's possible I was switched.
Please tell me you were switched with Ixi, and not that your target was switched...
Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:29 pm
Switched with Ixistant, the serial killer/axe murderer could've easily targeted me last night. Did you guys try to target someone last game who was protected? We didn't, I just assumed that when it said there would be a "Failed shooting" that that would be it, and no death would occur from the Mafia.
Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:32 pm
Wind wrote:okamotosan18 wrote:I was thinking about that, and it's possible I was switched.
Please tell me you were switched with Ixi, and not that your target was switched...
Yeah I'm sure that what Oka means is if it was a switch it meant that Oka was meant to be killed by the axe not Ixistant.
Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:35 pm
okamotosan18 wrote:Switched with Ixistant, the serial killer/axe murderer could've easily targeted me last night. Did you guys try to target someone last game who was protected? We didn't, I just assumed that when it said there would be a "Failed shooting" that that would be it, and no death would occur from the Mafia.
No, I don't think anything like that happened to the werewolves last game. I'm not sure if when your top person is protected, you maul/shoot the second person but I assumed that was what the list of people was for instead of just giving one name to ScottNak.
Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:35 pm
Yeah, it was a joke... a bad one, ok? Forget about it...
I think that if a baddie sends in a list with 3 names, and the first one is protected, he doesn't kill the second one. He just "fails" the shot.
I must go now... *fingers crossed for execution, I really do hope YesItIsh isn't a helpful character*
I think that if a baddie sends in a list with 3 names, and the first one is protected, he doesn't kill the second one. He just "fails" the shot.
I must go now... *fingers crossed for execution, I really do hope YesItIsh isn't a helpful character*
Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:37 pm
But then, if that happens what would the other people on the list be for?
Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:40 pm
My thought about the three-person list was this: People aren't always able to be on after the execution to submit a list for the mauling/shot, so they submit a list of three people earlier in the day. Well, the first person on the list might be executed, (and from last game, you did know whether you were going to maul/shoot first because that was the way it was set up so you really would've only needed two last game) then a bad guy team might submit their list before you, and might kill the second person on your list. Well, in that case you would attempt to kill the third person on your list. Wait, there are three bad guy teams this time, so wouldn't you need to submit a list of 4 people? 
Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:40 pm
I think the list it just in case the person on top is killed before the next kill comes along. Of course, it's a list of three, not two, so I may be wrong.
EDIT: Looks like he got it before me
EDIT: Looks like he got it before me
Last edited by Kugetsu on Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.