Normal Game Thread Full Metal Panic!: Fighting Boy Meets Girl Mafia

No I'm Town One-Shot Mimic Wraith
Oh you fear that you're a 3P's target, is that why you don't want to give flavour?

 

The **** is that shit now.

 

Oh Wraith is the flavour name btw.
The rest of that "shit", as CF exquisitely calls it, differs a but from how it's described in the guide (due to me having only one shot at it) so I'll explain: I can target one player during a night phase of my choice (except N0), and I'll gain all their active and passive abilities. When that target dies, if I'm still alive, I lose all gained abilities.

I tried it on Globs N2 but it failed.

 

That sounds... as convenient as my coroner claim last game, lol.

but I'll leave it for flavor experts I s'posse. @poutanko

 

I mean, it's not verifyable right now, granted, but it can be on the long term ^^'... (also it's the truth :$)
How would you compare it to a Miller claim or a Vanilla claim in terms of convenience?

 

The fact that it failed is pretty bad sounding tbh.

Well a miller claim is rarely faked to my knowledge cos as you see everyone and their grandmother expect it to be a mafia play, yet it's almost always town who just say it in the start for people not to waste time, yet people still waste their time... vicious cycle.

Vanilla's definitely the more questionable claim at the time.

But considering we've seen a total of what... 2 town PRs?

It's hard to say. Your role makes very little sense if your only options are guardian and cop. Or are you here to vouch for me by copying my miller status hah?

It's odd to put it lightly.

Though still less odd than the real life female pedo rape priest.

 

I don't know why it failed, and I know it doesn't sound good, but Ratchet told me that I can try again, which is why I said it's verifyable on the long term.
I could use my role to vouch for you. Cop and Guardian-that-somehow-doesn't-die-on-successful-protec are interesting enough imo.

 

Well I suppose it depends on mafia PRs. Killer, RBer, goon or Killer, ???, RBer, goon, or two goons. RBer would probably make your steal fail while retaining the shot. Why didn't you do it N1 though...? Glob's been outed since the beginning effectively...

I guess ask others opinions vouching for me saves me trouble of defending it every day, but at the same time I'm just flavor generic you'd be more of an asset getting one of the PRs and mafia killing me.

Either way.

 

I didn't try N1 because I only have one shot. I didn't want to waste it on a Vanilla lol.

 

Can't fault the logic anyways.

 

Oh wait sorry I didn't read the question entirely.

Well I thought that Glob had a high chance of dying and so it would make me lose the gained ability quickly. And at that time I was waiting to see if I could guess the Cop the next DP. Then on N2 I thought that, although it was still a pity I didn't know who Cop was, I needed to target someone early enough in order to be able to use my ability at all, so I went for Globear, the only one I was sure of, praying that she wouldn't be targetted.

 

ank


Also it's kinda interesting Evil's gone quiet.

 

Evil is watching Kekkai Sensen and resting in bed in an hour to be sleeping.

In terms of characters and role it kinda fits what Shanksette is claiming. Since the character did look like it's copying stuff in a way, but i am kinda iffy about it as she didn't really appear in the part we are currently playing. And that failed part makes it even stranger for me.

 

Evil is watching Kekkai Sensen and resting in bed in an hour to be sleeping.

In terms of characters and role it kinda fits what Shanksette is claiming. Since the character did look like it's copying stuff in a way, but i am kinda iffy about it as she didn't really appear in the part we are currently playing. And that failed part makes it even stranger for me.

 

You're overstating the risk quite a bit. As I already said, moving from a 93% chance the Mafia's kill is successful to a 100% chance that it is successful is not a huge loss for the Town.

I want to note that, at this time, I didn't really feel like there was anyone deserving of this sort of treatment, so it was not a risk I would accept in the current scenario; I just wanted to demonstrate (primarily to pou) that the strategy is not inherently flawed, but just not really applicable in our current situation.

Did you actually read that simplified exchange? We've "talked" about the nature of your claim insofar as you have said words in reply to us asking about why you claimed, but none of those statements have made sense, nor have they been consistent with one another.

That's the problem. Every time you're asked why you claimed, you give a different reason, often either mutually exclusive with a previous reason you gave, or accompanied by a direct denial of a previous reason you gave.

Post #392 contains 11 points addressed to you. Your reply in #395 contains 6 responses. Because you do not actually note to which point you are responding, it is difficult to figure out what each point is meant to address.

Contextually, your 1st point seems to be in response to my 1st point. Your 3rd point is clearly in response to my 6th point. Therefore, your 2nd point (the one in question) could be in response to my 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th point. Contextually, it makes no sense to be in reply to my 2nd, 3rd, or 5th point, which means it would have to be in reply of my 4th point, which is what I stated in my response.

The problem is that your 2nd point doesn't really make sense as addressing my 4th point, either. The exchange is as follows:

You: "When I mentioned preventing undue suspicion on someone earlier, I was talking about why I clarified the penalty, not why I claimed."

Me: "By the time you clarified the penalty, we already knew that you redirected kills, and so already knew not to treat a kill or failed kill on you as 100% meant for you."

You: "But I don't die when I redirect a kill."

Whether or not you die upon redirecting a kill does not address the concern I raised. You stated that you clarified the penalty to prevent undue suspicion on someone resulting from the kill appearing to fall on you instead of upon whom it actually was against. I pointed out that, because you had already claimed Guardian, we already knew not to do that. Whether or not you die is, well, not irrelevant, but actually harmful to your argument (since my core point was that you could have waited until after such suspicion arose to make such a clarification, and you not dying reinforces this point).

You insulted my ability to speak my native language and then called me rude for explaining how I do, in fact, know how to speak my native language, all while failing to actually explain what about my statement was allegedly confusing.

The statement is written in plain English. It is grammatically correct. It is syntactically correct. It is contextually correct.

You made a statement...
that, due to your role, we could safely assume...
that pou is Town.

You didn't consider...
since you claimed...
that you were a Doctor...
that the Mafia might have shot you.

It would have been better...
if you'd asked pou about the penalty...
before explaining the penalty...
because if she's Scum...
then she wouldn't know to lie.

But you didn't...
so we can't just trust pou...
because you gave her a reason to lie.

Alright, let's back up. Because you still don't get it.

If your ability causes kills that you redirect to fail, then we can trust pou, because you would have died if shot directly at.

If you have a passive which causes kills against you to fail, then we cannot trust pou, because you could have been shot directly at.

I have asked you several times to clarify this. You have refused. Who your penalty is applied to is irrelevant until we know whether the kill failing is part of your ability or a separate passive.

By asking us to treat pou as confirmed Town, you are implying the former. However, because you don't seem to have a clear grasp of what we're talking about, since I'm repeating this now for like the fourth time, I want to make sure that you understand this, before we blindly trust pou and find out later that you just didn't think this through.

I don't need all the information to make an informed decision about the risks and benefits of your play. I can tell just by interacting with you that you clearly don't understand what you're doing, and aren't willing to consider that you could have been wrong. Saying "I know what I'm doing" without actually giving an example or otherwise demonstrating this doesn't change anything.

This seems to be the root of your misunderstanding. You seem to think that the way the failed kill was worded was specific to your ability. It was not. Saying a kill failed against a person is standard for any failed kill in Ratchet's games. Whether the kill failed because of your ability, failed because you were immune to kills, failed because the killer was blocked, failed because you were protected, or failed because the killer has a fail chance, the text would be the same. The fact that a kill failed does not tell us anything other than that a kill failed.