Recommend
9 
 Thumb up
 Hide
73 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

The Resistance: Avalon» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Avalon Strategy Guide rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Connie V
United States
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hey-o.

Just wanted to alert all of you to an Avalon strategy guide I uploaded to BGG: boardgamegeek.com/filepage/121975 (as you can see, it's a wee bit long for a forum post).

The guide reflects Avalon as played by my group (not necessarily yours!) so the advice may be of varying utility. It took a rather large amount of time and effort to put together - constructive feedback and comments are very welcome.

Once I get over the burnout of putting this version together, I'll try to incorporate feedback into Version 2.0

Cool!



5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max DuBoff
United States
New Brunswick
New Jersey
flag msg tools
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: / Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
badge
Habeo in animo vivere in perpetuum aut mori dum conor.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fantastic idea/work!


A couple questions after reading the first section:
1. Out of curiosity, why does your group have a house rule against claiming specific characters?
2. Has your group found that 7P with both Morgana and Mordred favors Evil too heavily?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Connie V
United States
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
MD1616 wrote:
Fantastic idea/work!


A couple questions after reading the first section:
1. Out of curiosity, why does your group have a house rule against claiming specific characters?
2. Has your group found that 7P with both Morgana and Mordred favors Evil too heavily?


Thanks

1. That's a good question! It started before I joined the group, and I'm not entirely sure where it came from. I think it's some feeling that claiming characters is somehow external to the game. That said, every once in a while someone will do it - Morgana claiming to be Percival can be particularly destructive to Good!

2. It definitely can favor evil. Honestly, I think with a good Mordred, 7, 8, and 10 can all favor evil. It's buried in the Appendix, but there are a few alternative character combos - Morgana, Assassin, and Generic Red can work well, but one of my favorites with seven is Morgana, Mordred, and Oberon. It only works if all the players are relatively experienced, but I think it's a really balanced game - and tons of fun, too.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bharat Ponnaluri
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
MD1616 wrote:
Fantastic idea/work!


A couple questions after reading the first section:
1. Out of curiosity, why does your group have a house rule against claiming specific characters?
2. Has your group found that 7P with both Morgana and Mordred favors Evil too heavily?


I frequently play Avalon with the author of this guide. Here are my thoughts.

1. Unless Oberon is in the game, claiming specific characters seems to mess with the deduction aspect of the game or make their team lose. Players who are generic blue typically don't want to claim characters because they end up confusing the good team or exposing Merlin. As a result, only evil players have a good reason to claim roles. Once your group catches on to this, evil players will out themselves by claiming a role.

2. Regardless of who I played with, I found 7P with Morgana and Mordred to heavily favor evil unless Oberon gets added in the game. Without Oberon, you are essentially playing a 6 player game with an extra evil person, which heavily imbalances the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clyde W
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Red Team
badge
#YOLO
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bponnaluri wrote:
MD1616 wrote:
Fantastic idea/work!


A couple questions after reading the first section:
1. Out of curiosity, why does your group have a house rule against claiming specific characters?
2. Has your group found that 7P with both Morgana and Mordred favors Evil too heavily?


I frequently play Avalon with the author of this guide. Here are my thoughts.

1. Unless Oberon is in the game, claiming specific characters seems to mess with the deduction aspect of the game or make their team lose. Players who are generic blue typically don't want to claim characters because they end up confusing the good team or exposing Merlin. As a result, only evil players have a good reason to claim roles. Once your group catches on to this, evil players will out themselves by claiming a role.

2. Regardless of who I played with, I found 7P with Morgana and Mordred to heavily favor evil unless Oberon gets added in the game. Without Oberon, you are essentially playing a 6 player game with an extra evil person, which heavily imbalances the game.
1. I claim Merlin every game, regardless of my role. It works some of the time! And it is super fun.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max DuBoff
United States
New Brunswick
New Jersey
flag msg tools
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: / Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
badge
Habeo in animo vivere in perpetuum aut mori dum conor.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the responses!

As for 1, I'd say that that house rule would take out a lot of the juicy stuff that makes Avalon Avalon. PoR want to claim Merlin either by implication or outright and claiming other roles can be great for WIFOM. It sounds more like a carryover from when people were newbies...

As for 2, my favorite 7P rolset is Merlin/Percy/Morgana/Assassin. It adds enough without going overboard in my opinion and it's quite balanced. I'd say a lot of the other PBFers also like it and consider it pretty balanced.

Anyway, just my two cents. I look forward to reading the rest of the guide when I get the time!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alejandro F
Spain
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
1. I read it is as 'The red head with bad attitude' not as 'Percival'. It never crossed my mind that it was refering to this. I disagree, claiming roles could be so good to team blue as it could be to the bad guys. You just need to know when and what to claim.

2. I usually only play with Oberon and Mordred when I play outside my usual group and Resistance wins too much, so I can't say.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alejandro F
Spain
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Avalon guide wrote:

The good news is that it's really easy to vote like Generic Blue. In short, vote approve sparingly, and begin each game by voting to reject a team if you are not on it. To Generic Blue, this strategy makes sense. When you are Generic Blue you have exactly one piece of information: you are Good. If you are not on a mission, then the probability that there is an Evil player on the mission is higher than if you are on it. It’s a pittance, but at the beginning of the game it’s the only information Generic Blue has to work with.


I strongly disagree. If you are resistance and follow that tip, you gain exactly 0 bits of information. If I ever play with a group with this idea firmly planted I seriously propose the following variant: At the start of the game, the five person from the leader selects a team and it go without vote. Then proceed to M2.

A resistance member with that mindset only make for a perfect cover for spies. At least two resistance members should off-aprove one or two earlier teams on M1 just to make sure that the team proposed by the leader is a team that the leader really wants to go on missions. That way you avoid some spy-crap in M1.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John
United Kingdom
Southampton
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fisico wrote:
At least two resistance members should off-aprove one or two earlier teams on M1 just to make sure that the team proposed by the leader is a team that the leader really wants to go on missions.

Agreed - always voting no doesn't provide much information* as spies can propose missions that they wouldn't want to go ahead, so randomly voting yes is a good plan for that reason. Also if you randomly vote yes on a clean mission then you look like Merlin.

* You still get some information because there will be patterns in who the spies pick regardless of whether they think the mission will be approved as people are terrible at doing stuff at random - however you'd need to play lots of games with the same group before you noticed any patterns.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max DuBoff
United States
New Brunswick
New Jersey
flag msg tools
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: / Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
badge
Habeo in animo vivere in perpetuum aut mori dum conor.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fisico wrote:
Avalon guide wrote:

The good news is that it's really easy to vote like Generic Blue. In short, vote approve sparingly, and begin each game by voting to reject a team if you are not on it. To Generic Blue, this strategy makes sense. When you are Generic Blue you have exactly one piece of information: you are Good. If you are not on a mission, then the probability that there is an Evil player on the mission is higher than if you are on it. It’s a pittance, but at the beginning of the game it’s the only information Generic Blue has to work with.


I strongly disagree. If you are resistance and follow that tip, you gain exactly 0 bits of information. If I ever play with a group with this idea firmly planted I seriously propose the following variant: At the start of the game, the five person from the leader selects a team and it go without vote. Then proceed to M2.

A resistance member with that mindset only make for a perfect cover for spies. At least two resistance members should off-aprove one or two earlier teams on M1 just to make sure that the team proposed by the leader is a team that the leader really wants to go on missions. That way you avoid some spy-crap in M1.


No...

I agree with Connie's advice here. Remember that this is a guide for newer players. It's far better to have No as a baseline for the first mission and then to learn through experience when to vote Yes, but you should only vote Yes on the first mission to a team you're not on if you have a strong early read or you're making a hammer grab.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Connie V
United States
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm glad to see a discussion going! On the issue of voting -

First - Max is right: this is a guide for relatively new players. As is discussed throughout the guide, there are definitely times when it makes sense to vote "approve" off mission, even for the first mission. However, I feel pretty strongly that the "default" for new players should be "vote no unless there is a reason to vote yes," not "vote yes unless there is a reason to vote no." Evil has most of the information it needs at the start of the game, so limiting available information helps Evil and hurts Good; the more proposed teams there are (and the more votes players can see), the more information Good can learn.

Whenever I play with new players, Good usually gets steamrolled - new players will vote "Yes" on every proposed mission, making the first or second proposed mission go. This limits the opportunity of Merlin (and to a lesser extent Percival) to influence the mission selection process (if nothing else, if 5 people get to propose missions, one of those people is probably Merlin). Of course, if you get a good read on someone right away, it's a different matter.

At the same time though, a big part of the reasoning behind the advice in the guide is the assumption that: (1) if you're Generic Blue it's best to vote "no" unless you're on the mission, and (2) everyone is trying to pretend to be Generic Blue.

A friend who is very good at probabilities and logic(HexStarDragon on BGG) broke down the probabilities in an 8 person game for the first mission - from the perspective of an individual Generic Blue player (let's call him CM - for "chain-mail ear muffs"):

First, if CM is nominated for a mission:
1/7 of the time, Merlin picks, and nominates himself, CM, and 1 extra (1/4 evil)
1/7 of the time, Percival picks, and nominates himself, CM, and 1 extra (1/2 between Merlin/Morg - technically, the remaining players are 2/4, but Percival doesn't know that his first choice was generic blue)
2/7 of the time, generic blue picks, and nominates herself, CM, and 1 extra (3/6 evil)
3/7 of the time, evil picks and the mission is bad
Total: (1/7)(1/4) + (1/7)(1/2) + (2/7)(3/6) + (3/7) = 67.9% team with at least one evil, 32.1% good team

So, from the perspective of CM, if CM is on the team, about 1/3 of the time the team will be good.

If, on the other hand, CM is not nominated for the team:
1/7 of the time, Merlin picks, and nominates himself and 2 others (3/4 good x 2/3 good)
1/7 of the time, Percival picks, and nominates himself and 2 others (1/2 Merlin/Morg x 2/4 others)
2/7 of the time, generic blue nominated herself and 2 others (3/6 x 2/5 good)
3/7 of the time, evil picks.
Total: (1/7)(3/4)(2/3) + (1/7)(1/2)(2/4) + (2/7)(3/6)(2/5) = 16.4% good, 83.6% evil

So, from the perspective of CM, if CM is NOT on the team, the team will only be good about 16% of the time - half as often as if CM is on the team.

Anyway, to a certain extent probabilities are irrelevant if you get a good read on a player or if someone immediately outs himself. At the same time though, all other things being equal (and with a good group of players who are hard to read), from the perspective of a generic blue player, the team is twice as likely to be good if that player is selected for the mission. If everyone else is trying to "blend in," then people will be voting no a lot.

Whew that got long!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Vestal
United States
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
MD1616 wrote:

A couple questions after reading the first section:
1. Out of curiosity, why does your group have a house rule against claiming specific characters?


I play with this group, and I may have missed any "rule", but there's mechanically rarely an advantage to claiming a specific character. Everyone wants to claim to be good, but rarely does anyone want to claim a specific character. Merlin wants to look like generic good, Percival wants to look like generic good, in that Merlin is trying to look like generic good, generic good wants to leave the possibility of being Merlin, and evil wants to look good and claiming a specific character outs themselves to the player who is actually that character. Part of what I like about Avalon is there is incentive for all players to keep some aspects of their identity hidden, so it doesn't solely rely on an "honor code" to function at a basic level.

bponnaluri wrote:

2. Regardless of who I played with, I found 7P with Morgana and Mordred to heavily favor evil unless Oberon gets added in the game. Without Oberon, you are essentially playing a 6 player game with an extra evil person, which heavily imbalances the game.


The seven-player board is more forgiving for team selection though: 2, 3, 3, 4 (double fail), 4 instead of 2, 3, 4, 3, 4 in a six-player board.

Fisico wrote:

I strongly disagree. If you are resistance and follow that tip, you gain exactly 0 bits of information. If I ever play with a group with this idea firmly planted I seriously propose the following variant: At the start of the game, the five person from the leader selects a team and it go without vote. Then proceed to M2.

A resistance member with that mindset only make for a perfect cover for spies. At least two resistance members should off-aprove one or two earlier teams on M1 just to make sure that the team proposed by the leader is a team that the leader really wants to go on missions. That way you avoid some spy-crap in M1.


Nowhere does the guide say "always" or "never" - it simply suggests a baseline. It's important to vary one's votes as all characters, but it's an important concept for new players to realize that the risk/reward of voting approve and voting disapprove are not equal.

I'm not sure what you mean about team selection - evil characters have no reason to select a mission they don't want to go, so "forcing them to pick missions they actually want to go" has no benefit to good. The only character who might select a mission they don't want to go is Merlin, to try to hide from evil - so an excess of off-mission approval votes actually hamstrings him.

zabdiel wrote:

Agreed - always voting no doesn't provide much information* as spies can propose missions that they wouldn't want to go ahead, so randomly voting yes is a good plan for that reason. Also if you randomly vote yes on a clean mission then you look like Merlin.


Spies have no reason to select a mission they don't want to go, so deterring them from doing so has no benefit. A baseline practice for any character should be to include themselves on the quest proposal - the only missions spies don't want to go ahead are missions without themselves or any of their teammates.

Randomly voting yes for a clean mission is highly unlikely. You're much more likely to eliminate yourself as a Merlin candidate this way. People seem to underestimate just how improbable it is to have an all-good mission selected at onset, before the good team has had the chance to catch up on the information advantage evil starts with.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max DuBoff
United States
New Brunswick
New Jersey
flag msg tools
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: / Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
badge
Habeo in animo vivere in perpetuum aut mori dum conor.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with most of your points, David, but we disagree on one very important issue: PoR must rep Merlin, not the other say around. That's far better for the rebels because it takes pressure off Merlin and doesn't rely nearly as much on just one person.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alejandro F
Spain
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I agree that the default vote should be No and only vote yes when you have a reason. I just disagree that the only valid reason are the ones almost never happen on M1.

I could be just me, but when i read the guide I get the impression that I should vote no always until I get a read. Maybe it is my interpretation, but that idea is no good enough. If everybdy is new and, then, everybody follow that tip you get no information out of M1. A waste.

David, I as a spy could make a 3-spy team for M1.3 without risk of it going. Later, I can point that A is talking nonsense because if the spy team is the one he suggest M1.3 would be 3-spy and that's crazy. No. I want that proposal have a greater than zero possibility of going. When I say a 3-spy team, It could be a clean team or whatever nonsensical team you want.

I heard people say M1 is pointless all the time and it is a by-product of this mindset. It could be just a side note in that section but at least give some food for thought?

By the way. I think I didnt say it earlier: very hard work doing the guide. Color me impressed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John
United Kingdom
Southampton
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
HexStarDragon wrote:

Spies have no reason to select a mission they don't want to go, so deterring them from doing so has no benefit.

Yes they do - we have guessed who the final spy is after mission 4 (without Merlin) based on early mission proposals, since we knew it was less likely that spies would propose a double spy mission. As Alejandro says spies being able to put all the spies on a mission and be certain it won't go ahead isn't great for the blue team.

HexStarDragon wrote:

A baseline practice for any character should be to include themselves on the quest proposal - the only missions spies don't want to go ahead are missions without themselves or any of their teammates.

Agree with the first part, but they may not want a multi-spy mission to go ahead either.

HexStarDragon wrote:

Randomly voting yes for a clean mission is highly unlikely. You're much more likely to eliminate yourself as a Merlin candidate this way. People seem to underestimate just how improbable it is to have an all-good mission selected at onset, before the good team has had the chance to catch up on the information advantage evil starts with.


I agree that you're unlikely to randomly vote yes on a clean team, but disagree that you'll eliminate yourself as a Merlin candidate since Merlin might deliberately vote for a bad team to keep his cover, and the first mission is a good one to do this on, because it has few players, so if it fails gives the on mission good players info. Obviously this has the potential disadvantage that Merlin might look bad to the rest of his team...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John
United Kingdom
Southampton
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Avalon Strategy Guide wrote:
If the first mission succeeds, it is pretty common to either pick the same team and add yourself (if you weren't on the first team), or pick the same team and add one additional player (if you were on the first team).


Avalon Strategy Guide wrote:

This provides a good reason to mix up the team between the first and
second missions; even so, it can look suspicious if you make too many changes to a team that was successful.


It is fairly common in our games to make multiple changes if M1 passed - e.g. send only 1 person from mission 1 on mission 2, or sometimes even pick a totally different mission 2. M1 success, M2 fail where M2 = M1 + one person might suggest the added person failed the mission but if you're group thinks that then the spies will use that to their advantage and pass M1. I certainly agree with your suggestion that sending a totally different team after M1 fails is a bad plan. In summary I think we make more changes to a successful M1 than a failed M1, which I think is what you do too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin R
United States
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
zabdiel wrote:
Avalon Strategy Guide wrote:
If the first mission succeeds, it is pretty common to either pick the same team and add yourself (if you weren't on the first team), or pick the same team and add one additional player (if you were on the first team).


Avalon Strategy Guide wrote:

This provides a good reason to mix up the team between the first and
second missions; even so, it can look suspicious if you make too many changes to a team that was successful.


It is fairly common in our games to make multiple changes if M1 passed - e.g. send only 1 person from mission 1 on mission 2, or sometimes even pick a totally different mission 2. M1 success, M2 fail where M2 = M1 + one person might suggest the added person failed the mission but if you're group thinks that then the spies will use that to their advantage and pass M1. I certainly agree with your suggestion that sending a totally different team after M1 fails is a bad plan. In summary I think we make more changes to a successful M1 than a failed M1, which I think is what you do too.


I generally prefer building off M2 from the M1 group, traditionally adding 1, even arguing that others should accept the mission even though I reject well over 90% of proposals. In my group, spies will very frequently sandbag M1 (virtually 100% of the time with only 2 on M1), but I also think it puts more pressure on others' voting narrative to explain discrepancies in acceptance/rejection. My favorite questions to ask are in the vein of "To A: Why do you think B rejected C's nomination?"

This is such a fantastic game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max DuBoff
United States
New Brunswick
New Jersey
flag msg tools
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: / Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
badge
Habeo in animo vivere in perpetuum aut mori dum conor.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fisico wrote:
I agree that the default vote should be No and only vote yes when you have a reason. I just disagree that the only valid reason are the ones almost never happen on M1.

I could be just me, but when i read the guide I get the impression that I should vote no always until I get a read. Maybe it is my interpretation, but that idea is no good enough. If everybdy is new and, then, everybody follow that tip you get no information out of M1. A waste.

David, I as a spy could make a 3-spy team for M1.3 without risk of it going. Later, I can point that A is talking nonsense because if the spy team is the one he suggest M1.3 would be 3-spy and that's crazy. No. I want that proposal have a greater than zero possibility of going. When I say a 3-spy team, It could be a clean team or whatever nonsensical team you want.

I heard people say M1 is pointless all the time and it is a by-product of this mindset. It could be just a side note in that section but at least give some food for thought?

By the way. I think I didnt say it earlier: very hard work doing the guide. Color me impressed.
(emphasis mine)

That only helps the spies if people mistakenly assume that spies won't put other spies on their proposals.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alejandro F
Spain
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
MD1616 wrote:
Fisico wrote:
I agree that the default vote should be No and only vote yes when you have a reason. I just disagree that the only valid reason are the ones almost never happen on M1.

I could be just me, but when i read the guide I get the impression that I should vote no always until I get a read. Maybe it is my interpretation, but that idea is no good enough. If everybdy is new and, then, everybody follow that tip you get no information out of M1. A waste.

David, I as a spy could make a 3-spy team for M1.3 without risk of it going. Later, I can point that A is talking nonsense because if the spy team is the one he suggest M1.3 would be 3-spy and that's crazy. No. I want that proposal have a greater than zero possibility of going. When I say a 3-spy team, It could be a clean team or whatever nonsensical team you want.

I heard people say M1 is pointless all the time and it is a by-product of this mindset. It could be just a side note in that section but at least give some food for thought?

By the way. I think I didnt say it earlier: very hard work doing the guide. Color me impressed.
(emphasis mine)

That only helps the spies if people mistakenly assume that spies won't put other spies on their proposals.

Emphasis mine.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Wall
United Kingdom
London
Surrey
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for sharing, I really enjoyed reading the guide.

The term you're looking for when people seek (or only pay attention to) evidence that fits their assumptions is "confirmation bias".
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Vestal
United States
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
MD1616 wrote:
Fisico wrote:
I agree that the default vote should be No and only vote yes when you have a reason. I just disagree that the only valid reason are the ones almost never happen on M1.

I could be just me, but when i read the guide I get the impression that I should vote no always until I get a read. Maybe it is my interpretation, but that idea is no good enough. If everybdy is new and, then, everybody follow that tip you get no information out of M1. A waste.

David, I as a spy could make a 3-spy team for M1.3 without risk of it going. Later, I can point that A is talking nonsense because if the spy team is the one he suggest M1.3 would be 3-spy and that's crazy. No. I want that proposal have a greater than zero possibility of going. When I say a 3-spy team, It could be a clean team or whatever nonsensical team you want.

I heard people say M1 is pointless all the time and it is a by-product of this mindset. It could be just a side note in that section but at least give some food for thought?

By the way. I think I didnt say it earlier: very hard work doing the guide. Color me impressed.
(emphasis mine)

That only helps the spies if people mistakenly assume that spies won't put other spies on their proposals.


Maybe your play groups go different, but I still don't understand what you are getting at with evil picking missions they don't want to go. In our play group, evil characters will nominate missions with 1 (themselves only), 2, or 3 evil characters on the mission, with no strategic downside for having any of those missions go. I agree with Max - it'd be a big mistake for good players to assume that there aren't more than one evil player on a mission, or that evil players won't nominate their teammates. There is also specific benefits to nominating your evil teammates - Morgana can lower her odds of accidentally selecting Merlin, and if a mission fails less information is provided to good (since any good players on a failed mission get extra information since they know it wasn't them, and can narrow down evil to fewer possibilities). The bigger risk, from my perspective, isn't selecting evil teammates and having the mission go, but selecting teammates too often so that it becomes predictable and you accidentally out them.

I'm not familiar with the term "PoR" - I'm guessing it's a Resistance term for generic good guy? If so, then yes, generic blue should absolutely present as Merlin if they are able to - but this is a much more difficult process since they don't know who is bad, and can easily vote or select them for missions without knowing any better. It's hard to represent having more knowledge than having less.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John
United Kingdom
Southampton
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes I think PoR is plain old resistance. Maybe someone should write a resistance glossary.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clyde W
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Red Team
badge
#YOLO
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PoR = PoRry = Plain Ole Rebel

GoE = Good Ole Murray = Murray = Merlin

PeR = Perc = Percy = Percival

MoR = Bad Ole Mordy = Mordy = Mordred = Vampire

MoG = Bad Ole Morgy = Morgy = Morgana

Assy = Assassin

DoS = Dumb Ole Spy = Obey = Oberon

PoS = Plain Ole Spy

DL = Dirty Lance = Evil Lancelot

CL = Clean Lance = Good Lancelot
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max DuBoff
United States
New Brunswick
New Jersey
flag msg tools
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: / Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
badge
Habeo in animo vivere in perpetuum aut mori dum conor.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
HexStarDragon wrote:
MD1616 wrote:
Fisico wrote:
I agree that the default vote should be No and only vote yes when you have a reason. I just disagree that the only valid reason are the ones almost never happen on M1.

I could be just me, but when i read the guide I get the impression that I should vote no always until I get a read. Maybe it is my interpretation, but that idea is no good enough. If everybdy is new and, then, everybody follow that tip you get no information out of M1. A waste.

David, I as a spy could make a 3-spy team for M1.3 without risk of it going. Later, I can point that A is talking nonsense because if the spy team is the one he suggest M1.3 would be 3-spy and that's crazy. No. I want that proposal have a greater than zero possibility of going. When I say a 3-spy team, It could be a clean team or whatever nonsensical team you want.

I heard people say M1 is pointless all the time and it is a by-product of this mindset. It could be just a side note in that section but at least give some food for thought?

By the way. I think I didnt say it earlier: very hard work doing the guide. Color me impressed.
(emphasis mine)

That only helps the spies if people mistakenly assume that spies won't put other spies on their proposals.


Maybe your play groups go different, but I still don't understand what you are getting at with evil picking missions they don't want to go. In our play group, evil characters will nominate missions with 1 (themselves only), 2, or 3 evil characters on the mission, with no strategic downside for having any of those missions go. I agree with Max - it'd be a big mistake for good players to assume that there aren't more than one evil player on a mission, or that evil players won't nominate their teammates. There is also specific benefits to nominating your evil teammates - Morgana can lower her odds of accidentally selecting Merlin, and if a mission fails less information is provided to good (since any good players on a failed mission get extra information since they know it wasn't them, and can narrow down evil to fewer possibilities). The bigger risk, from my perspective, isn't selecting evil teammates and having the mission go, but selecting teammates too often so that it becomes predictable and you accidentally out them.

I'm not familiar with the term "PoR" - I'm guessing it's a Resistance term for generic good guy? If so, then yes, generic blue should absolutely present as Merlin if they are able to - but this is a much more difficult process since they don't know who is bad, and can easily vote or select them for missions without knowing any better. It's hard to represent having more knowledge than having less.


Yes, agreed. Two of the biggest mistakes I see new players making are not putting spybuds on proposals and assuming that others won't.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John
United Kingdom
Southampton
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've seen far more incompetence. The biggest mistakes I've seen from new players are always voting for missions, not failing missions*, and in one case a rebel failing a mission.

* I remember one spy having been the only spy on two missions and not failed either!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.