[FNZ] Super Role Madness Pokemon: I choose you!

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Flower me and Jan made a decent case on Ratchet bussing, how do you see it

we cannot really be spread all over cause potentially 6 person scum can load wagons as they want, proportions are getting out of our favor
 
Good evening, my new mafia friends! I hope this new day phase finds you well (except Jan, who I notice is sadly deceased).

When I agreed to participate in this game, I had no idea what the phases were, how long it would go on for, or how long I could expect to survive. Unfortunately, I'm now in the position where the game is clashing with a five-day business trip that commenced at 2am today for me. This means that I won't be around very much until Saturday, and although there will be a couple of hours each evening where I am able to be online, you can expect my level of activity to drop significantly while I'm away.

Please rest assured this has nothing at all to do with the level of fun I am having playing with you all, and is simply an unfortunate consequence of real-life commitments clashing with how much I would like to be involved here.
 
Vote lynch Orca

Let us see if this sticks better today, now that we're out of third parties to string up.

I'm confused about the wording of "destroy one of their incoming actions"

To me this reads two ways:

1. If the person targets Jan with something, and Jan targets them as well, then the action being made (i.e. "incoming" on Jan) will be destroyed

2. If Jan targets the person, then one of the actions targeting them by another player (i.e. "incoming" on Jan's target) will be destroyed

Given the wording, "one of their incoming actions", and the likelihood of one person targeting Jan with multiple actions, I'm going to guess that the latter meaning is the correct one, and that Jan may have been cancelling out actions on his targets, instead of cancelling the actions of his targets as intended.
 
Vote lynch Orca

Let us see if this sticks better today, now that we're out of third parties to string up.

I'm confused about the wording of "destroy one of their incoming actions"

To me this reads two ways:

1. If the person targets Jan with something, and Jan targets them as well, then the action being made (i.e. "incoming" on Jan) will be destroyed

2. If Jan targets the person, then one of the actions targeting them by another player (i.e. "incoming" on Jan's target) will be destroyed

Given the wording, "one of their incoming actions", and the likelihood of one person targeting Jan with multiple actions, I'm going to guess that the latter meaning is the correct one, and that Jan may have been cancelling out actions on his targets, instead of cancelling the actions of his targets as intended.
Jan possibly upgraded it. Look at the beginning of his role note. And he said he roledestroyed Reloaded. I treat Jan as a competent player who wouldn't mess up his claim. But I wonder then why scum Reloaded wouldn't claim it.
 
Jan possibly upgraded it. Look at the beginning of his role note. And he said he roledestroyed Reloaded. I treat Jan as a competent player who wouldn't mess up his claim. But I wonder then why scum Reloaded wouldn't claim it.
Shui also said he wasn't aware of any role-destroying action being taken on him. Though, I can't remember if Shui actually claimed any action being taken on that night. I'll have to go back and check, but perhaps BTAM could confirm if Shui took any N2 actions that could have been destroyed.
 
I used an action that can break him (sucker punch)

But it has an awkward interaction that I may have misunderstood.
Jan himself claimed that he may have misunderstood what his ability does.

The passive ability is also a little confusing: I took "upgraded" to mean that he gets an extra shot of it. Is that not the case?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top