Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Coppermirror
G55 the Innocent wildling agrees with Wilwa the Three-Eyed Raven that we don't want to kill the bear and says she would trade the extra kill for a cobbler if push came to shove. Later she comments on how her assumption that the Lovers would be against the village might have been wrong. At #22 there's a piece of banter between her and Lommy about Encaitare the peasant and bears which might have spooked the Lions about her if Encaitare is one of their number or perhaps made them think she was a bear-dreaming Seer leaving hint. But would that be enough for them to act on? Odds are low that a Seer would have dreamed of a villain on Night 1.
|
No, I doubt her comment on
Encaitare would have been taken as a likely Seer-hint by either party (it’s basically just quoting
Lommy anyway). However –despite my earlier comments– I find it odd that you think the villains would comfortably discount the idea of being Seer-dreamed on Night One. After all, not only can it happen, it happened
last game. To
us!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Coppermirror
- Lommy of Baratheon at #48 is puzzling in her bolding and italicising of her statement about possible vote ruling. Is that really something a villain would want to say? I'll try reading it each way. (1) an innocent who really is spooked by the situation. That's consistent with what I can see of her analysis of the stats, which frankly are rather concerning. (2) a lover putting out feelers to the Lannisters. Not, perhaps, particularly likely at that point of the game. I can't see that being a good move for them. (3) a Lannister putting out feelers for the lovers. Not as risky as it would be for a lover, but still risky. Lommy would have to be a very bold Lannister taking a risk on Day 1 like that.
That statement is something that would be likely to attract the attention of the Three-Eyed Crow, and the lovers and Lannisters would want to avoid that, plus they couldn't realistically have expected to get the Three-Eyed Crow on Night 2. So perhaps Lommy is more likely to be an innocent.
|
Interesting. I was just reading through yesterDay, and
Lommy's explanation of how the Lions and Lovers could join forces for mutual profit actually struck me as being rather suspicious. Not “String ‘er up!” suspicious, but certainly eyebrow-raising. I mean, yes, it’s something an innocent might legitimately bring up too– but I wouldn’t myself dismiss it
just on the grounds of being “too risky”.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Coppermirror
Skip of an innocent house wanted to focus on the lions rather than the lovers. Then suggests that the Targaryen should reveal...Oh, okay, I'm beginning to see how he got the axe on Day 1.
|
Indeed. I’m going to look over the
Skip-waggon myself, but the fact is he really did walk into that, which is going to make it hard to distinguish any suspicious votes.
EDIT:X’d with Kitanna.