03-20-2016, 10:32 PM
Hello sirs,
So after reading 10 pages of pesky talk, here is what I have to say (please excuse me for being away this afternoon):
A-man's logic isn't entirely faulty, should it be a 1vs1 inquisitor battle. Trusting the inquisitor is a 50/50? No, it is less, because the town inquisitor can get some results wrong due to the werewolf inquisitor's abilities. So, besides not knowing if the inquisitor is telling the truth on his own good will, we also don't know if he's telling the truth because he might have gotten wrong results. This renders the inquisitor pretty useless, we will never know if he's telling the truth or not. On the other hand, killing an inquisitor is a 50/50 chance of killing a werewolf.
However, the story is entirely different if there are 2 inquisitors on the town's side. And to make things balanced, this sounds reasonable. This way the results of both inquisitors can be cross-checked. Yes it's possible they got some wrong information because of the werewolf ability, but most of the information should be accurate. HOWEVER, if you kill one of the town's inquisitors before he had the chance to do any checkings, then we get the above scenario where killing all inquisitors becomes the wisest choice, and we lose a very important role that would help us win the game. Then the hunt for the other werewolves would be based on killing off the knights and one other shot in the dark.
Anyway, my vote goes to Bamboori. Afaik, the mafia can have a scout, and needlessly exposing an inquisitor, plus suggesting his death, is highly suspicious to me. It looks like his way of trying to kill an inquisitor both possible ways (by lynching, and in case it fails, next nights).
So after reading 10 pages of pesky talk, here is what I have to say (please excuse me for being away this afternoon):
A-man's logic isn't entirely faulty, should it be a 1vs1 inquisitor battle. Trusting the inquisitor is a 50/50? No, it is less, because the town inquisitor can get some results wrong due to the werewolf inquisitor's abilities. So, besides not knowing if the inquisitor is telling the truth on his own good will, we also don't know if he's telling the truth because he might have gotten wrong results. This renders the inquisitor pretty useless, we will never know if he's telling the truth or not. On the other hand, killing an inquisitor is a 50/50 chance of killing a werewolf.
However, the story is entirely different if there are 2 inquisitors on the town's side. And to make things balanced, this sounds reasonable. This way the results of both inquisitors can be cross-checked. Yes it's possible they got some wrong information because of the werewolf ability, but most of the information should be accurate. HOWEVER, if you kill one of the town's inquisitors before he had the chance to do any checkings, then we get the above scenario where killing all inquisitors becomes the wisest choice, and we lose a very important role that would help us win the game. Then the hunt for the other werewolves would be based on killing off the knights and one other shot in the dark.
Anyway, my vote goes to Bamboori. Afaik, the mafia can have a scout, and needlessly exposing an inquisitor, plus suggesting his death, is highly suspicious to me. It looks like his way of trying to kill an inquisitor both possible ways (by lynching, and in case it fails, next nights).

Chat
