Status
Not open for further replies.
I have no clue what you're talking about
I'm referring to this:


Oh I wanna test this with some stuff that prolly u shouldn't know but muugen *maybe* does, let's see what he's got:

Back then on OJ i was serial killer pairing with someone in a Wuxia game, who was my partner? Who won the game?
He answered; "Rot", Miss Broker.
 

Ratchet

The End and the Beginning
I feel like I'm getting completely ignored so I'll just restate what I said and leave it for today.

TAC, earlier in the game, used someone surviving a kill as a point of suspicion. He did not, however, have any issue with my claim. This was already weird - he survived a superkill today and apparently the only cost was a passive ability. This presents a contradictory line of reasoning from TAC, and one he has no interest in explaining away.

He should be the vote today, and we know superkills fail on him (because of course they do, kills only work on town).
 

Ratchet

The End and the Beginning
Well ur claim is kenpachi lmao
Yes, my point was that I claimed immunity to kills. If he thought surviving a kill was all that suspicious, as he also had means to survive kills, he would probably be a bit concerned with my claim - instead he was more concerned with Ekko surviving one. This indicates that he feels the act of surviving kills at all is suspicious, which in turn makes his own survival, duly suspicious.
 

Ratchet

The End and the Beginning
To put it into other terms, TAC trying to lynch Ekko for surviving a kill earlier in the game doesn't jive with his current claim of being able to easily survive superkills.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top