Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
17 Posts

Specter Ops» Forums » Rules

Subject: Consequences of Voting for the Wrong Hunter as Traitor? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Pam Poovey
United States
detroit
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The rulebook doesn't indicate that there are any consequences for voting for the wrong person as traitor. But it does say that once per round (at the beginning of the hunter's turn), the hunters can vote to out someone as a traitor.

Theoretically, wouldn't the hunters be able to collectively vote for one hunter as a traitor every round and eventually get it right as to who the traitor actually is (by round 4)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Tarr
United States
Floyds Knobs
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The rule is about revoking someone's access to the vehicle, not actually OUTING them.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Carter
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You can't vote someone as the traitor. They are only revealed if it is proven that they are the traitor or if they choose to reveal themselves.

Like Rob said above, voting is for revoking access to the vehicle, so I wouldn't recommend voting for everyone unless you want to play the game without the vehicle and give the agent/traitor a HUGE advantage.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pam Poovey
United States
detroit
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tarrkid wrote:
The rule is about revoking someone's access to the vehicle, not actually OUTING them.


I found another similar thread

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1443319/outing-traitor

Any time the agent becomes visible to a hunter while the agent was secretly in line of sight of the traitor, it becomes apparent who the traitor is. At that point, the traitor takes a movement sheet and immediately moves (even if he already took his turn as a hunter). Then he writes down his first move on the movement sheet and removes his figure from the board. The traitor is now considered a second agent.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pam Poovey
United States
detroit
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Courtesy of another thread, I'll probably implement this house rule on voting for traitors (this house rule actually got a smiley face from the developer):

aronpolemic wrote:
So from other people's input I think I will change the house rule to the following:

Quote:
Upon unanimous vote of the hunters, excluding the accused, as to the identity of the traitor: the traitor must reveal themselves if they indeed are the traitor. If the hunters are wrong and there is an objective left to be accomplished, the agent gets to accomplish a random objective. The agent must then move there character to a location necessary to have accomplished that objective. If instead there are no more objectives left to be accomplished, the agent then gets an extra turn immediately after their next coming turn.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Victor Lesperance
United States
Northville
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Personally, I'm not a fan of implementing any sort of "voting" people out. I'm actually tempted to call the idea "vile".

First, if you're 99-100% sure that player X is the traitor, then why are you voting anyway? You can just ignore him for free. Turning him into an official agent just lets him go invisible, hands him equipment, and creates a distraction. Because you want to gun him down? Nope. Unless the player completely sucks, with a free move and 2 pieces of equipment, nothing can stop him from simply running to the nearest exit and leaving the game. And if anyone even tries to stop him... you've been distracted - better that you left him an ignored hunter. And if you contrive a situation where (for example) you surround him then force a reveal, gunning him down with him unable to escape...well, that's not a scenario that I think benefits this game.

And if you're not 99-100% that he's the traitor, then "voting" and forcing him to flip his card is essentially cheating. The traitor is doing a great job if he's confused the team yet can't be pinpointed. So, you create a house rule where if the hunters are too confused, they just start flipping people's loyalty cards over?

Then there's the real 30% chance that you're 100% sure he's the traitor, but guess what? You're simply wrong. A great devious traitor fooled you and you just ruined the game by grabbing someone's card and flipping it. And it does ruin the game because, from my experience, suspicions usually settle down to 2 people providing contradictory data. It doesn't really matter which you flip. Either way, you out the traitor.

And frankly, what are you trying to accomplish by voting someone to reveal? What problem did you just solve? Why the talk of house rules that solve no problem, but risk instantly breaking a game session and ruining someone's long term strategy?

I played an amazing game where my lies had everyone 100% convinced that an innocent player was the traitor. And what followed was the greatest game. If they could have just voted him out? He'd reveal as innocent, be back to full power, I'd be neutralized. And we'd just "skip over" part of what had been a fun game? Great for the hunters. Great for the agent. And yet another reason that it sucks to be the secret traitor.

I am a veteran of all games hidden traitor. The concept of "we suspect you, so flip over your card, so we can verify our guess and thus play more efficiently..." is fairly abhorrent.

Its also counter intuitive to the entire secret traitor mechanic:

A "good" secret traitor sows confusion so nobody knows who to trust.
A "great" secret traitor so twists the truth that everyone is 100% sure that he is innocent and an innocent player is the traitor.

Any "vote and reveal" house rule hamstrings a "great" secret traitor.

And again, what does allowing votes even accomplish?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Victor Lesperance
United States
Northville
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Upon reflection, there is one problem to solve, but its not the one being addressed in this (or the last) thread.

A "vote" should never, ever be held asking people "do you think (or know) that he the traitor (yes/no) (yes = flip loyalty card)." That violates every tenant of hidden traitor games.

The difficulty is the real question: "Has a sound proof been established such that he must be the traitor to the exclusion of any other possibility?"

And that's not just semantics. Those are VERY different questions. VERY different.

And here's the problem with even asking the latter question. The smarter a person is, the "more they know how much they don't know." The the less intelligent the person, the less likely they are to correctly process a sound proof.

I've played several hundred hidden traitor games. I love them. And I play with people who have PHD's (one in Math), engineers, almost all with at least Master's degrees, all board gamers (obviously), all would describe themselves as "intelligent." And yet...in the throws of a tight game, I've seen hundreds...and hundreds...and hundreds... of false logical constructs, bad assumptions, memory lapses, missed details, etc. And since *I* want to win, I don't feel the need to correct people - even when I'm on the "honest" team! Because I don't want to establish a behavior pattern that locks me down in future games when I AM the traitor. And, frankly, I get a lot of mileage out of keeping my mouth shut and so "play" the traitor to my advantage.

My point is: The mere allowing a vote is bad news. Some will simply interpret the vote as "do you think he's the traitor," which is basically cheating. Some will apply false logic. Some are actual traitors, and they are disadvantaged regardless how they vote.

And what does the vote accomplish in the best case? Not a whole lot.

So what's the harm of dropping it?

Case in point: One game I was the traitor. The Gun locked down a particular street that the agent was likely to cross as we tried to pen him in. Two verified motion sensors showed that the agent indeed crossed that road. *EVERYONE* vilified The Gun for being a traitor and calls were made to force him to flip his card because it was *proven*.

Since *I* was the traitor, I realized what really happened. The agent had used gear to pass unseen. Yet, with a "vote" looming, I actually had to defend The Gun and suggest that gear was possibly the cause of the the confusion.

ABOLUTELY NOT FAIR TO ME

Any other secret traitor game, I should have been able to jump on the band wagon and crucify the innocent person, cementing my ability to confuse and obfuscate for many turns to come. I shouldn't have to correct my opponent's bad assumptions to my own detriment.

In the history of hidden traitor games, you just don't hold votes to make someone flip their loyalty card (with one exeception in one game's expansion, but with the caveat that loyalties might change after doing so). The general rule in all hidden traitor games:

1) No votes are held. You "vote" by just not trusting that person.
2) Votes cause them to suffer "restrictions." Traitors can self reveal when such restrictions become too oppressive and several turns of not revealing often gives the "honest" team pause to wonder if they made a huge mistake.

This game already implements #2. If you don't think vehicle denial is tough enough, I'd rather see a house rule that made the restriction tougher, but well short of flipping their card.

But in summary: Why the obsession about holding a vote? If the question even warrants a vote, then holding a vote is the wrong thing to do.

EDIT: Apologies. There is a 3rd class of pseudo-hidden traitor games - Social Deduction:
3) Votes ARE held to flip a loyalty card. The entire win condition is tied to what is revealed when cards are flipped. The point of the game is solely to deduce the traitor. If you want to turn S.O. into this kind of game, then the cost of being wrong should be instant Agent victory. Yet, IMO, reducing S.O. to this kind a game is a disservice.

EDIT2: Removed 5 words that seem to be threatening to derail the whole thread.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shaun Cooley
United States
Evansville
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dead of Winter allows for a vote with a reveal. Shadows over Camelot allows for an accusation with a reveal. Both are extremely highly regarded hidden traitor games.

Heck, take it one step further and add Spyfall to that list. That whole game is about accusing the hidden traitor, and everyone I've played it with go absolutely bonkers for it.

Judging by many of the posts I've read, Specter Ops' 5 player hidden traitor variant is not particularly highly regarded. For some people the thrill of a vote and reveal (with the associated benefit or penalty depending on whether you are right or wrong) is a huge part of the fun of hidden information.

Whether or not Specter Ops can be easily modified to fit that format I don't know, but if it helps people have more fun with the game, then they're going to do it regardless of what the internet thinks of them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Victor Lesperance
United States
Northville
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
benstylus wrote:
Dead of Winter allows for a vote with a reveal.


It does not.

Reread your rulebook. Its an exemplary example of #2 from my list above. You vote a player into exile. That is all. This is a form of play restriction. Just like brigging someone in BSG, quarantine in Dark Moon, denying a team mission access in The Resistance... or denying them car access in Specter Ops.

If an innocent player in DoW flips over their card to rub it in to those who just exiled him... he's just cheated. He's screwing the potential secret traitor who is obviously playing a great long con.

benstylus wrote:
Heck, take it one step further and add Spyfall to that list. That whole game is about accusing the hidden traitor, and everyone I've played it with go absolutely bonkers for it.


I can't add Spyfall to that list. It's already in my post above! It falls 100% under the social deduction category (#3 in my post) where point of the game is to hold a vote to force a reveal - which makes the game (or round) instantly end. Such games have to end upon the reveal. If the whole point is guessing correctly, then once you've guessed - its game over - win or lose - correct or wrong.


benstylus wrote:
if it helps people have more fun with the game, then they're going to do it regardless of what the internet thinks of them.


Your tone is implying that there's something wrong with my post. If so, you're going to have to point it out to me. I wrote 2 very long posts (by internet standards) and I spent 95% of that asking probing questions.

Sure, I gave a couple opinions. Am I not allowed to do that? Didn't the OP ask for opinions? I think this is the perfect forum for offering opinions. I even added many intriguing thought starters for free. You're welcome, internet!

But I will state one absolute. Contrary to popular opinion, "voting that someone is the traitor" is not actually part of the game. It is nowhere in the rulebook, nor implied. House rule it (and anything else you want) to your heart's content.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tolis Koutsikos
Greece
Athens
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
These other games don't allow you to reveal the traitor through normal gameplay like Specter Ops. Hence the extra vote mechanism.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Graham Gass
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
vlesperance wrote:
benstylus wrote:
Dead of Winter allows for a vote with a reveal.


It does not.

Reread your rulebook. Its an exemplary example of #2 from my list above. You vote a player into exile. That is all. This is a form of play restriction. Just like brigging someone in BSG, quarantine in Dark Moon, denying a team mission access in The Resistance... or denying them car access in Specter Ops.

If an innocent player in DoW flips over their card to rub it in to those who just exiled him... he's just cheated. He's screwing the potential secret traitor who is obviously playing a great long con.


You are wrong. After you exile someone they draw an Exiled! card. Look at literally any of the Exiled! cards. The first thing they say is "IF YOU ARE NOT THE BETRAYER Reveal your secret objective to all players and remove it from the game."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Victor Lesperance
United States
Northville
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tokou wrote:
These other games don't allow you to reveal the traitor through normal gameplay like Specter Ops. Hence the extra vote mechanism.


I *agree* with the above statement, but raise the following concerns about *implementing* that statement. (because every implementation mentioned so far is a mis-implementation for resolving that issue)

The real question that is being voted on, is:

Did the game mechanics just reveal the traitor objectively?

As opposed to what many keep saying:

Do you think so-and-so is a traitor?

As proof that I think most people are confused about the difference:

Most solutions I've heard suggest that a vote is called on the accused and only the 3 non-accused hunters may vote. Why? Are people who play hunters naturally more logical than people who play agents? And thus are better at rating the soundness of logic?

If you're really voting on the correct question, why are you excluding the accused from voting? Because he'll lie? But you allow the 3 hunters to vote, and any and all of them could be lying as well, right? Further, the 3 hunters could be honest... but wrong. Yet everyone agrees that they can vote.

And yet, the accused knows more about the truth than anyone. But, he can't vote? This vote isn't about preference, like a government election. People are voting on what the TRUTH is. And yet, the person who KNOWS more about the truth than anyone is excluded. Why?

In fact, one entire team is excluded from voting on whether the other team's logic is sound? News flash: Never let someone vote whether or not their own logic is sound. Right? Team hunter are the LAST people who should be allowed to vote if team hunter's logic is correct. Particularly, when team hunter may have a mole who's job is to mislead them.

Team agent may even *KNOW* that the other team's logic is flawed, they may have done something devious to FLAW the other team's logic. And yet can't say anything without revealing the truth... which is assinine in a hidden traitor game, right?

And the real secret traitor is forced to out himself if he's honest by joining the accused's defense? (After spending the game vilifying him? Nothing suspicious there, right?) The alternative is that he lies and joins the vote of his peers and breaks the game. That's the reward of being a great hidden traitor?

I think after all this I've stumbled on to the best solution. Yet, I can't help but think that people will think its insane.

Anyone on the hunter team can present any logical, "mechanical" proof as to why the accused is the traitor.

The accused - and only the accused - then votes honestly.

Now the game can't break. And hidden traitors are free to falsely vilify the innocent to their heart's content. And there's no reason to think the accused is less honest than hunters who also have just as many motives to cheat during a vote. (Hunters may cheat to gun down the accused at a convenient point. Hidden traitor may cheat to avoid being gunned down at any point.)

The ONLY possible issue is if the accused cheats and votes against their conscious. But even if he does, he doesn't get much. I'd argue that in most cases its better be outed at that point. If he's not outed, he's effectively eliminated from play at that point. He can watch others play the game for the last hour. That's a FAR better worst case scenario then when the hunters cheat (or err): They break the game.

Also, the possibility that he "might cheat" isn't really a valid concern. If cheating is a concern... this entire game is utterly broken. Your prime nemesis spends the entire game in secret. If he wanted to cheat, there's little anyone could do about it. If he wanted he could spend the entire game not actually writing down his last move until the hunters finished their turns, then officially record himself in a "safe spot" every turn.

This game demands and assumes honesty. So, with that, my suggestion seems to fix all issues.

Total ruleset:
A hunter may present an argument proving mechanically that the accused must be a traitor.
The accused honestly replies agree or disagree to the soundness of that argument.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Victor Lesperance
United States
Northville
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Flame112 wrote:

You are wrong. After you exile someone they draw an Exiled! card. Look at literally any of the Exiled! cards. The first thing they say is "IF YOU ARE NOT THE BETRAYER Reveal your secret objective to all players and remove it from the game."


My bad. I neither own the game personally, nor have had the pleasure of being exiled, so I've never read such a card.

I was thus going by actual game rules rather than "the golden rule."

To that end, I would argue that in such a game, forcing a reveal doesn't actually change the "deceptive" game state. The accused gets a new loyalty. And since any game has a 50/50 chance of even having a traitor, you've really haven't outed a traitor by using poor logic.

This does't work in Specter Ops where a "bad vote" can actually help you out quite a bit. And the proposed "solutions" have many cases that are supposed to address that disparity, but can help the hunters even more.

For example, the idea that a false guess scores a free random agenda and moves the agent to it:

The agent may have saved for last the agenda closest to the exit. He's ready to score it next turn and flee home. Team hunter, getting desperate, uses poor logic (or just plain cheats). Now they:

Confirm one previously ostracized agent, restoring him to full power.
Likely out the traitor.
Teleport the agent to the corner farthest from the exit.

Not a bad reward for screwing up.

Not to mention that that these are sludgy work-arounds that make no game mechanic sense at all. Teleports for no reason. The ability to divine the truth just by accusing someone. Its silliness.

And of course, my main point: Team hunter being allowed to vote someone out isn't in the rules. Its a work around, and I don't think the best one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shaun Cooley
United States
Evansville
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
vlesperance wrote:


I *agree* with the above statement, but raise the following concerns about *implementing* that statement. (because every implementation mentioned so far is a mis-implementation for resolving that issue)

The real question that is being voted on, is:

Did the game mechanics just reveal the traitor objectively?

As opposed to what many keep saying:

Do you think so-and-so is a traitor?


I think you're misinterpreting the issue, which is that some players want to have the most fun possible while staying true to the feel of the game. For those folks, that may mean implementing a house rule like this or the game stops coming to the table.

And if they really like the Metal Gear vibe the game gives, they may not want to shelve it, so coming up with a rule that keeps their game group happy, even if it means playing a way the designer did not intend, is preferable to not playing at all.

Quote:


As proof that I think most people are confused about the difference:

Most solutions I've heard suggest that a vote is called on the accused and only the 3 non-accused hunters may vote. Why? Are people who play hunters naturally more logical than people who play agents? And thus are better at rating the soundness of logic?

If you're really voting on the correct question, why are you excluding the accused from voting? Because he'll lie? But you allow the 3 hunters to vote, and any and all of them could be lying as well, right? Further, the 3 hunters could be honest... but wrong. Yet everyone agrees that they can vote.

And yet, the accused knows more about the truth than anyone. But, he can't vote? This vote isn't about preference, like a government election. People are voting on what the TRUTH is. And yet, the person who KNOWS more about the truth than anyone is excluded. Why?


You may also be a bit confused in your thinking as to why the accused does not get to vote.

A defendant in a court case knows the truth about whether or not he is guilty. He is the only one in the room who knows 100% about whether he committed the crime or not (barring some weird circumstance where he's innocent, and the real culprit happened to have jury duty that day).

So why does the accused criminal not get to be on the jury?

He can testify, present evidence, plead and argue, but in the end, the decision to convict or exonerate is not one he should have direct influence over, particularly when a unanimous vote is required for conviction.

Although that would certainly solve the problem of prison overcrowding :-P

As for thematically justifying a free completed objective and teleporting there, that's easy. While the hunters are busy bickering and holding a vote, they're also busy NOT looking for the agent. So it isn't teleportation, just that he's moving unimpeded due to their distraction.

As for justifying a random one and teleporting there, that's a little harder to swallow thematically, and if people who are playing that way run into the problem scenario where the hunters "cheat" the agent to the furthest objective, or surround one objective and start accusing and hope he is forced to randomly appear at that one, then obviously that rule doesn't work for that group, and they might modify it again to be to move to any square of the agent's choice - collecting an objective if they move next to one.

I agree that there really isn't a big upside to the hunters to make a vote, though. If they are right, the traitor is outed, but they still have to get one of the two players down to zero life. If they're wrong, it probably just cost them the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Victor Lesperance
United States
Northville
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think your counter example follows.

You poo poo the madness of having the accused on the jury... while promoting a jury consisting solely of the prosecutors.

That would, in turn, save the cost of a trial.

But - an assumption of my past posts is: Honesty. This game mandates that players don't cheat. If people cheat, this game doesn't exist in any form.

So, given an honest prosecutor and an honest defendant...

Who's vote should determine the trial's outcome?

The defendant, of course. The prosecuter asks an honest question. The defendant gives the honest answer. The chips fall where they must.


Nor do I think you're right that this is an issue about intentional house ruling this game to suit personal tastes.

Re-read the original post:

EnergyQuoobs wrote:
The rulebook doesn't indicate that there are any consequences for voting for the wrong person as traitor. But it does say that once per round (at the beginning of the hunter's turn), the hunters can vote to out someone as a traitor.

Theoretically, wouldn't the hunters be able to collectively vote for one hunter as a traitor every round and eventually get it right as to who the traitor actually is (by round 4)?


This is NOT someone theorizing about changing the game. They are literally trying to parse the rule book (and getting it wrong).

Re-read the referenced thread:

aronpolemic wrote:
So we played last night and our game blew up into a huge hour long argument with multiple people looking up rules and clarifications on the internet with no resolution other than a house rule.

[YADA YADA]

Then a lot of rules lawyering commenced. The book says

[YADA YADA]

.We looked all over the net to find if the LOS example was just an example or the only official situation that a traitor can be outed.

[YADA YADA]

and probably wouldn't have done something so obviously treacherous if the rules had spelled out that that would have been grounds for revealing them as the second agent. But that's not exactly what they say. This was a case of the hunter just doing something that we as a group did not agree with; is that grounds for revealing them as a traitor? Officially?


He's OBVIOUSLY not pondering a personalized game. Let me really condense:
aronpolemic wrote:
looking up rules
clarifications
rules lawyering
the book says
official situation
the rules had spelled out
Officially?


If you're going to argue that he's doing anything other than trying to process the official rules accurately, I don't think we have any basis for further debate on the topic.

And his thread references even earlier ones that ask the same questions. NONE of these people are doing what you say. All of them are trying to implement the rule book as written, and running into problems.

All of my posts were aimed at THOSE people and solving THEIR issue. And I'm pretty sure I did it. If you trust people not to cheat (and this game requires that), then my solution solves 99%. And the last 1% is very trivial the grand scheme. (And if you're really caught up on honesty - let the agent be the sole jury. If you don't trust his honesty, you shouldn't be playing this game with him - and yet he knows *EVERYTHING*)(And to be clear - he doesn't have to explain WHY he refused your request. That would imply you getting knowledge you don't deserve. He simply says yes or no, and the chips fall as they must.) Literally, PROBLEM SOLVED.

In regards to *YOU*, I'm ALL FOR modifying games and house ruling anything and everything to suit a group's personal tastes and play styles. And people who know me would tell the world that, without question, I'll ram in a hidden traitor house rule to any game that could remotely fit one. Its literally a running joke amongst all my friends.

So, I hear you and I support the cause, brother!

So, I'll just say that all my ramblings and theorizing led me to my own house rule. That house rule is, I believe, a more proper implementation to solve the problem for those people trapped by that ambiguous word "apparent" in the rule book. Those people have directly stated in many past threads that that ambiguity is a problem for them. They are not trying to make a new game. My posts are for them.

For others who are intentionally adding more social deduction to this or any other game - bring it on - I'm all ears and quivering with antici...


pation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Victor Lesperance
United States
Northville
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
benstylus wrote:
You may also be a bit confused in your thinking as to why the accused does not get to vote.


I should really leave this alone, but I'm trying hard not to feel mildly insulted.

You felt the need to explain to me why defendants aren't members of their own jury?

I'll give you credit that you were pretty polite about it, which many internet-ites are not.

Here's the great irony of your argument:

I've written pages now trying to explain in detail my stance. I'm proposing that people abort this premise that you're voting on whether the accused is guilty. BY THE OFFICIAL RULES - and the game's developer has confirmed in this very forum (I'll supply the quote below) - you are not allowed to hold a vote on whether you think he's guilty. Now, you're free to modify the game any way you want. But that is the official stance, which is all I've been arguing - a best fit algorithm for correctly implementing the official rules.

So, what you do vote on is whether the accuser's argument is a sound and valid proof of guilt.

So... and here's the funny part:

The ACCUSER'S ARGUMENT is on trial, not the suspect. And who have you been saying is allowed to vote? The ACCUSER who made the argument.

So, in actuality, you are the one who is allowing the defendant to be the juror of his own trial. Not me.

Defendants being their own jurors is exactly the issue I've been railing against all along! THAT is what is allowing false loyalty reveals and breaking the game, and leading to yet more house rules to mitigate the damage.

Thank you for crystallizing it for me.

nazcagames wrote:
Born-of-Ashes wrote:
So if the hunters know who the traitor is, but there is no mechanical proof, then the most they can do is exile them from the vehicle and the traitor doesn't have to worry about revealing or escaping?


Yes, that is correct. At that point, it becomes 3 Hunters vs 1 Agent where the hunters have an advantage. The traitor does have a choice as to reveal and gain two equipment cards to help their ally or not.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erwin Anciano
Philippines
flag msg tools
While I don't agree with Victor's classifications of Hidden Role games, I do agree with him that a voting mechanic to force anyone to reveal their role card has absolutely no place in Specter Ops.

The best Traitor/Hidden Role games are the ones where you cannot force reveal someone's role card by vote, unless it is the whole point of the game and it ends in a win/loss for either team (such as Spyfall or Bloodbound), or results in drastic consequences for the non-Traitor team.

Dead of Winter lets you out a Role Card by vote, but the consequences of voting wrongly are very high, as two wrong votes results in all the good players losing. There has to be a balance to the mechanic, but I personally don't like DoW much, even if it's highly-regarded around here.

I can sort of agree with the House Rule where a wrong vote accelerates objective completion or gives a free turn, as it balances the vote out, but I don't like it because thematically it sucks and makes no sense. So the hunters holding a consensus and vote maybe gives the agent time to make a mad dash to an objective? I can stretch my disbelief to make it work but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

There's far more fun to be had in keeping identities secret and sowing discord and paranoia -- think Darkmoon or BSG. A hidden traitor sowing paranoia is just such a bigger thrill than just outing someone. The game already has a mechanic to allow for the traitor to be revealed -- stick to that and try to catch the traitor in the act if you want to out him.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.