|
Post by soullimbo on Jun 14, 2016 8:28:16 GMT -5
I thought it might be best to start a new thread. This is what I posted on the previous thread:
I've left a message for David in our room that perhaps Lukas would be the better pick now. Hope he goes for it.
|
|
|
Post by switza on Jun 14, 2016 9:03:27 GMT -5
Seems like a solid plan. Although I'd love to be in on the strategy sessions with Lukas for this.
|
|
|
Post by Tomcat Murr on Jun 14, 2016 12:41:43 GMT -5
Seems easy enough.
Also, I think just don't lie, but bluff to make people think you're lying. With information from Pete, we could eliminate them pretty easily if they lie. Stage attacks that will go nowhere except to facilitate that, etc...
I'm my team's leader. I trust Misty and Rachael to tell them, but wanted to run it by here first, to see if either have ideas. Making them seem to be the leader might be a good idea.
That said, MAS, Questions:
1. So, we win by team? Meaning if someone on the winning team dies, they still win if their team wins, correct? 2. How does one die exactly? By being attacked just once without being able to defend, or do they have to be attacked multiple times? 3. On a similar note, if a sword can attack, if someone only has swords, how do they defend? Or do attacks neutralize each other? ie: if someone attacks with a dual sword (2 attacks), and their opponent defends with a dual sword, does that mean the defense effectively negates the attack?
|
|
|
Post by Tomcat Murr on Jun 14, 2016 12:46:57 GMT -5
^ my thought there is that if a shield can block 3 attacks TOTAL, but a dual sword can attack/defend twice each time, it would make more sense for a leader to have a dual sword to negate any possible attacks. Then, then only way to eliminate a leader would be if they lie about their weapon, or if they cast doubt on someone else's. Which would be the easiest way to go about this. Then give someone else both shields, have them never attack (thus suggesting to everyone they have both shields), and everyone will waste their time trying to attack them. If they finally succeed, and the person dies, then if they still win even if their team does... Yeah.
|
|
|
Post by Tomcat Murr on Jun 14, 2016 13:01:52 GMT -5
I'll be back on in a few hours. Mas is probably asleep now, anyway. But I'm confused about what actually kills a player. For example, if you're attacked with a dual sword but defend with a sword, does that mean you're killed because one attack hits you? Or does it take more than one attack to kill someone? It would make more sense for the leader to have the dual sword, so it can trump/match any attack when defending.
I want to wait until I hear back from Mas before I reveal to Misty and Rachael that I'm the leader, though.
|
|
|
Post by switza on Jun 14, 2016 13:03:27 GMT -5
I'm not 100% clear on the stuff you're asking.
|
|
|
Post by Tomcat Murr on Jun 14, 2016 13:19:11 GMT -5
Yeah, sorry, I didn't word that well.
One person attacks, and the person they attack "defends". But what exactly is a defense? It's to keep you from being killed by the attack, right?
The rules don't state how a player is killed by attacks. The rules state a player is killed if they fail to defend themselves, and that a player is killed if they lie about their weapon and their opponent raises doubt, OR if they raise doubt against their opponent but their opponent is telling the truth.
The rules don't say anything about how many attacks it takes to kill a player. Is one successful attack enough to kill them? Or does it take multiple successful attacks? If raising doubt is the only way to eliminate someone, both teams could be completely honest and the challenge could go on forever. So there must be a way to kill someone through attacking them in itself.
To defend yourself, you use a weapon. Shields cannot attack, only defend. But what would be the point of trying to defend with a sword if that defense didn't guard against attacks, too? If your opponent's attack is successful if you have anything except a shield, why defend at all?
A dual sword attacks twice every time it's used. So, if someone defended against a dual sword with a regular sword... a regular sword has one attack, a dual sword has two attacks. Which means the dual sword would successfully "attack" the player with a single sword once, correct? Because the player's defense would counteract ONE of the dual sword's attacks, but not the other.
I just want to make sure I have that right... that swords can not only attack, but can actually defend, too. Meaning, a dual sword can attack twice, but can also defend against 2 attacks every time it's used. (like, imagine someone swinging a sword, and the person they swing it defends by swinging their sword to block their opponent's sword).
If I'm right about that, it means nothing could trump the dual sword. Another dual sword could match it, but that's all. It does mean that if player A has a dual sword in their right hand, and a single sword in their left hand... if player B attacks with a dual sword, but player A defends with their left hand (single sword) because they think player B is using a single sword, player A would be attacked once (not twice, because the single sword/left hand blocked one of the dual sword's attacks). Which is where bluffing, and raising doubt, would come into the strategy.
|
|
|
Post by soullimbo on Jun 14, 2016 14:43:28 GMT -5
you can only defend with a shield. Swords CANNOT defend. Swords can used multiple times. Shields can only defend 3 attacks before becoming redundant.
Example : you have a sword in your right arm / bare hands on left arm
opponent attacks you with a sword. You don't have a shield to defend yourself with. But that doesn't have to stop you. You just say "I'm defending myself with the shield on my left arm". At this point, he can just take your word for it, that you have a shield, or he can call you out on it. If he takes your word for it, you survive. If he calls you out, you die.
|
|
|
Post by soullimbo on Jun 14, 2016 14:44:34 GMT -5
By the same token, if an opponent thinks you're lying and calls you out, but you are in fact telling the truth, he dies.
|
|
|
Post by soullimbo on Jun 14, 2016 15:01:53 GMT -5
Just to warn you, Lukas was talking nonsense in that room. Our leader has not accidentally revealed themsleves, because we don't know who it is lol. Hence why Lukas was asking for an extension since Nyx and David haven't showed up
|
|
|
Post by Bandage Man on Jun 14, 2016 16:03:28 GMT -5
Seems easy enough. Also, I think just don't lie, but bluff to make people think you're lying. With information from Pete, we could eliminate them pretty easily if they lie. Stage attacks that will go nowhere except to facilitate that, etc... I'm my team's leader. I trust Misty and Rachael to tell them, but wanted to run it by here first, to see if either have ideas. Making them seem to be the leader might be a good idea. That said, MAS, Questions: 1. So, we win by team? Meaning if someone on the winning team dies, they still win if their team wins, correct? 2. How does one die exactly? By being attacked just once without being able to defend, or do they have to be attacked multiple times? 3. On a similar note, if a sword can attack, if someone only has swords, how do they defend? Or do attacks neutralize each other? ie: if someone attacks with a dual sword (2 attacks), and their opponent defends with a dual sword, does that mean the defense effectively negates the attack? 1. Yes, the game ends when the first team leader dies. Doesn't matter if you had already died but if the opposing team leader dies first, you still win the challenge. 2. You basically die if you either raise a doubt wrongly or cannot prove the doubt that somebody raised on you is correct. E.g. if i pretend to have a shield and somebody raise i doubt that i don't, then i die. if i raise a doubt they have dual swords but they actually have, i die. what you actually have doesn't matter as long no doubt is raised. 3. only shields can defend. so if you say you are defending with anything other than that, you will automatically die, even if you have a shield. doesn't matter if you have a shield or not, the only other way of not being killed by saying you have a shield is to raise a doubt.
|
|
|
Post by switza on Jun 14, 2016 16:36:51 GMT -5
So if I have sword and bare hand and Pete attacks me with a sword, my options are:
A. Defend with shield. He raises doubt and since I don't have a shield, I die. B. Defend with shield. He does not raise doubt so nothing happens. C. Raise doubt he had sword. He does have sword and I die. D. Raise doubt he had sword. He does not have sword and he dies. E. Do nothing and die.
Are those the only possibilities?
|
|
|
Post by Bandage Man on Jun 14, 2016 16:46:33 GMT -5
yes, correct.
|
|
|
Post by Tomcat Murr on Jun 14, 2016 17:52:35 GMT -5
Oh, got it. So the weapon you have doesn't actually matter, and the attacks don't actually kill anyone. Only raising doubt or not defending. Interesting.
New question: Can you defend with a shield after 3 attacks? For example, on the 4th attack, if you defend with a shield, you wouldn't have it any more, and thus someone could raise doubt even though you have a shield (but it's already been used up)?
|
|
|
Post by Tomcat Murr on Jun 14, 2016 18:18:30 GMT -5
Assuming a shield can be used up, it might make sense to give me both shields. I can attack Pete (since the attack won't kill him) - and only Pete - to throw people off and claim it's something else, and as long as he doesn't raise doubt, I'm good (others would raise doubt). Might be a good idea for someone else on our team to attack Pete without him raising doubt, too... Maybe wait for the 2nd round, then attack Pete with a lie, then defend against someone else with the truth (or Pete can attack, the player he attacks can lie, then our team attacks with the truth - in the same hand), to push them into raising doubt.
Also, Pete - if you know the weapons everyone's using, that'll help a lot.
|
|