The Sorcerer as it has appeared in my games is an old carryon from the games of White Daimon and Ironhead 5, where it enjoyed a lot more use. People don't know what to do with it anymore, I guess...
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It removes carnage, though. What it could do, is combining the leader and sorc abilities, and, on the previous night, ordering the transfer the lynch away from one target into another (after it fires, it can no longer be used). If both targets are tied, both die and the ability is used. This would keep the carnage going just fine.
My blind hatred toward you prevents me from rationally judging your argument. Carnage.
Good, because I haven't rationally judged your suggestion. I shot it down and hacked it with a machete, dripped it in gasoline, and set fire to the whole place. Carnage.
If that's how you're using the no-lynch sorceror, then you are using it wrong. The sorceror should protect whoever the village wants to lynch, but for some reason has failed to. If someone is killed, but saved by the sorceror, chances are he gets bandwagoned the next day. Eg the village spend 2 days with just 1 day of meningful debate to kill 1 person. This benefits the baddies irrespectives of the loyalties of the saved person. Plus since the baddies of the sorc pack knows if the target is probably innocent, then they can spend the following day being all goody like. If the goodies are aware that this is the strategy used by the baddie sorc, then they will not bring up the same few people for the lynch every day* nor will it be certain that a saved person will be bandwagoned afterwards. This means that the pressence of the sorc makes it easier for your packmates to get out of problems.
This Sorc can also be the cause of some hilarious awesome gameplay. It once helped me survive 3 lynches in a row as an outed and confessed baddie, it all got too embarrasing for the JL in the end and they had me hunted
Sure they could control the vote, but they still couldn't get me killed. It was glorious! Oh and on the 3rd lynch day both me and EURO were outed and confessed baddies, but since we had been that for some time. The village thought that one of us was probably protected, so they decided to lynch a third baddie that they had just scanned. Guess who I had asked the sorc to protect *This is one of the reasons GMs like it.
This was the original use of our sorcerer. He was protecting random people to see what he could do, but since most of the lynches were pretty random, he never hit one until he found out I was being scanned.
If that's how you're using the no-lynch sorceror, then you are using it wrong. The sorceror should protect whoever the village wants to lynch, but for some reason has failed to. If someone is killed, but saved by the sorceror, chances are he gets bandwagoned the next day. Eg the village spend 2 days with just 1 day of meningful debate to kill 1 person. This benefits the baddies irrespectives of the loyalties of the saved person. Plus since the baddies of the sorc pack knows if the target is probably innocent, then they can spend the following day being all goody like. If the goodies are aware that this is the strategy used by the baddie sorc, then they will not bring up the same few people for the lynch every day* nor will it be certain that a saved person will be bandwagoned afterwards. This means that the pressence of the sorc makes it easier for your packmates to get out of problems.
This Sorc can also be the cause of some hilarious awesome gameplay. It once helped me survive 3 lynches in a row as an outed and confessed baddie, it all got too embarrasing for the JL in the end and they had me hunted
*This is one of the reasons GMs like it.
As Kingepyon said, that's exactly how our pack tried to use it. The problem was guessing who would be lynched 24 hours in advance, and I think the only success there was when we had an inside man in the JL knowing Kingepyon was getting scanned.
If that's how you're using the no-lynch sorceror, then you are using it wrong. The sorceror should protect whoever the village wants to lynch, but for some reason has failed to. If someone is killed, but saved by the sorceror, chances are he gets bandwagoned the next day. Eg the village spend 2 days with just 1 day of meningful debate to kill 1 person. This benefits the baddies irrespectives of the loyalties of the saved person. Plus since the baddies of the sorc pack knows if the target is probably innocent, then they can spend the following day being all goody like. If the goodies are aware that this is the strategy used by the baddie sorc, then they will not bring up the same few people for the lynch every day* nor will it be certain that a saved person will be bandwagoned afterwards. This means that the pressence of the sorc makes it easier for your packmates to get out of problems.
This Sorc can also be the cause of some hilarious awesome gameplay. It once helped me survive 3 lynches in a row as an outed and confessed baddie, it all got too embarrasing for the JL in the end and they had me hunted
*This is one of the reasons GMs like it.
As Kiwi and King point out, Bagricula tried to do exactly as you suggested. It had occurred to me too - it is not lost on me that if you protect a villager from the lynch the village will be distracted by it. Perhaps the sorcs in EUROO7's game (Joeb never got a chance) just tried to protect their own packmates... certainly given the way some people play, I can see how they wouldn't think of this. Nonetheless, Bagricula tried to create exactly the chaos you suggested, but was unable to do so. A more orderly village would be susceptible to the lynch-blocking sorcerer though. In any case, my point is that criticism that it was OP was invalid on the evidence to hand. There've been something like 3 lynchblockers since EUROO7 resurrected it, and only one has used the role productively, and then only once (unless I missed something from mind machinations). Perhaps it introduced too much chaos in games you played, but thus far it's not our experience, and I don't see that it needs nerfing. Arguments that the lynch should be sacrosanct are another thing.
Vainglory, you cannot point this game as evidence, since it could easily have become a disgrace with two sorcerors alive. Lucky for us, joeb the sorc was hunted night 0.
What I don't like, is that it removes emphasis from the "staying hidden amongst the villagers" part of WW.
What I don't like, is that it removes emphasis from the "staying hidden amongst the villagers" part of WW.
You're always contrary for the sake of it, Reis. If I didn't consider it comical, it might be annoying.
It takes a lot of "IFs" for 2 sorcerers to become a serious problem for the village. Granted IF there are two sorcerers and IF Pack A's sorcerer correctly guesses who to protect and IF Pack B's sorcerer decides to protect Pack A's wolf, it COULD become stupid. But that's a fair few IFs. It requires the Priest doesn't discover either sorcerer, and that the sorcerer correctly guesses in the first place, and that the other pack cooperates, and that there's no hunter to kill the protected wolf...
It could have become a disgrace, but the odds are low.
And I dislike the GA, as it removes the emphasis on hiding the identity of the JL. I'd happily either get rid of both, or set them up in opposition - but crucially with ways to get around both.
The best way would be to get rid of self-protecting hunters (randomness should be abandoned anyway), but in exchange keep the identity of the hunter secret in the update. Give both sides a couple of hunters, and keep the number of GAs/protecting cultists low. No doctors at all, to cut out some randomness.
Oh, and in the last setup the "cultist" could really have been called a sorceror, giving the cultist name to the protecting role. It would simplify some of the changing between rule sets.
The best way would be to get rid of self-protecting hunters (randomness should be abandoned anyway), but in exchange keep the identity of the hunter secret in the update. Give both sides a couple of hunters, and keep the number of GAs/protecting cultists low. No doctors at all, to cut out some randomness.
Oh, and in the last setup the "cultist" could really have been called a sorceror, giving the cultist name to the protecting role. It would simplify some of the changing between rule sets.
Now that EUROO7 has explained he revived the sorc, it explains why he had protecting sorcs and scanning cultists, whereas prior to that sorcs were scanners and cultists usually nothing very useful (aside from Reis's scanning, subverting, and faction-forming cultists) but I'd prefer, as you said, to have sorcerers as scanners and cultists as miscellaneous, for continuity sake.
I'd be happy to see non-GA+Doc and non-sorcerer games, as well as setting them up against each other - as I've said before, using more traits to balance. I think Rendap balanced his game well, since the wolves had some brutals to use against the JL, and some curses too, and an SA, but were badly outnumbered. The village had numbers, apprentices, a blessing, a hunter, and I believe an SA. As it turned out, the village was unlucky and the Priest never got an apprentice (in fact no apprentices were claimed), the hunter trait was wasted, and the wolves had much luck. But the underlying balance seemed to be exactly what some of us had been pushing for. In a game with ironman JL, I'd like the wolves to have LOTS of brutals and some hunters too.
A thought on cutting out % chance roles, I was mulling over a change to the doctor. No more % chance of protection: the victim simply dies. But in exchange they always yield a wolf name; the doctor applies first aid to the victim, which allows them to say who attacked them, but fails to save them. In fact this actually reminds me more of a padre administering the last rights, if we want a unique name for it. This of course makes it very much like a witness, as the doctor sees who performs the attack - but it has no % chance.
Not at all, the "padre" would have to guess who would be attacked, and therefore it would necourage smart play from both sides, while keeping the mandatory carnage. I approve.
Two protective sorcerers would be as bad as two GAs. Sure there can be brutals and hunters to go through the protection but having someone unhuntable or unlynchable is not good for game pace. Unlynchable is slightly worse than unhuntable because that takes away the only tool for the plain villagers leaving them with a very boring game.
This, very much this!
I think two GAs is significantly more powerful than two sorcerers, unless the sorcerers are in the same pack. If they're in the same pack then they're very close to the same power as two GAs (GAs, by virtue of being able to choose based on the information during the day, and choosing at the last minute, as opposed to sorcs that have to pick the day before, are easier to use effectively), but when they're in separate packs much less so.
Like WD said, you're doing it wrong. The sorc can manipulate events so that the village wastes time and scans on random people that got saved. I'll give you a freebie:
Sorc A publicly outs X as a wolf and protects him. Deadline comes, he doesn't get killed. The other sorc sets a conditional order to protect him if he survives the lynch. The village tries to lynch him tomorrow, and it is frustrated. When the village starts to suspect it was a set-up, the wolves already had a lot of safe days and will be impossible to catch through vote analysis before they hit parity.
You see, the lynch is much more powerful than the hunt, by the simple reason that it takes only one wolf to hunt, but many votes to decide who gets lynched. The mob smashes the individual. Thus, the ability to mess with the lynch is far better than the ability to mess with the hunts.
"You're doing it wrong" is an idiotic statement, as I have never been a sorcerer, nor even had one in my pack, save Bagricula in the last moments of Airports when he'd already protected Kingepyon and there was no time, let alone need, for risky gambits.
I don't need any "freebies" because as I already pointed out, I could see useful ways of deploying the sorcerer other than just to protect your packmates. Plus, I wouldn't be fool enough to perform an IJL outing with myself as the mouthpiece unless I wanted to get scanned and killed. Good plan!
Anyway, the post you're quoting is in response to Johho's suggestion that two sorcerers are just as bad as two GAs. But that requires them to coordinate, and that's a very big ask. Look at the last game, where two important goodies decided to go solo, so one got lynched and the other expended the hunter trait before it was necessary. Both were experienced players. That sort of thing happens all the time, even with experienced players. Even if they know what the normal thing to do is - IE contact the JL mouthpiece, or to put a conditional protection order on the outed player - for reasons known only unto themselves, often as not they don't.
Yes, two sorcerers could be a complete fiasco for balance purposes, but I'll believe it when I see it.