Roleblocker Block-errs

[IH]

1.What happens when a roleblocker blocks a mason?

2.What happens when a roleblocker blocks a one shot action? Is that one shot action used?

3.What if a roleblocker blocks a redirector who has in turn redirected the roleblocker elsewhere?

[Mr Stoofer]

As always, this is a matter for the Mod. But if it were me:

1. Nothing.

2. Very much depends on the Mod, but I would say that the on-shot action is used up.

3. Roleblockers are usually processed first (that's what I do), so the redirector would be blocked.

[Khelvaster]

The action is not used up. It isn't used at all, because it is blocked.

[Mr Stoofer]

That's not how most Mods do it. E.g. Mini 229: I roleblocked the one-shot vig (who was trying to kill me). I survived and the vig lost his kill.

[IH]

See the third question is the most difficult, but I think for flavor reasons it could work either way.

Probably I would think how a roleblocker would block for the game. If the roleblocker kept someone in their house or dwelling or tent or whatever, then Block>All

If the redirector gets outside, and then is around the roleblocker, then they manipulate the roleblocker as usual.

[Kelly Chen]

Blocking a mason should do nothing in my opinion. It seems silly to me to expect to tell people, at the END of a night phase, that they were not allowed to be talking as it turns out.

2.What happens when a roleblocker blocks a one shot action? Is that one shot action used?

I think you could rule whichever way you prefer (it is a bit mean to have a one-shot move that ends up being useless), but for (say) a one-shot vig I think you should rule the same way for doc protections as for a roleblock. Especially if your setup does not inform people "you were blocked" when a move fails.

If I had not thought about it beforehand, then yes, the action would be used up if it were blocked, just as it would be used up if it failed due to a doc protection.

3.What if a roleblocker blocks a redirector who has in turn redirected the roleblocker elsewhere?

I think this could go either way. Roleblockers and redirectors both inherently need to trump other actions. Not clear which should trump the other.

[IH]

Coin flips?

Of course then we'd have to be careful in case people from alternate universes showed up.

[Thok]

The one time I've been a mass redirector, the mass redirection took precedence over roleblocking. (Which was a very good thing for town at the time: shakes fist at Glork).

[Prof. Guppy]

I say redirect takes precedence over block.

Now for a true paradox...A bus driver switches himself and the doctor. The roleblocker targets the doc. What do you make of this whole mess?

[Max]

In my games the bus driver can't change seats with himself Because he is always in the drivers seat otherwise the bus would crash

[The Fonz]

The driver isn't switching with himself, he's switching with the doc.

[Mgm]

Simply don't allow the bus driver to be one of the people he's switching.

[Glork]

The one time I've been a mass redirector, the mass redirection took precedence over roleblocking. (Which was a very good thing for town at the time: shakes fist at Glork).

PORN!


Also, I agree with Mr Stoofer.

[Zindaras]

I always determine on an order of precedence pre-game if I have a role-redirector and a roleblocker. You can base it on flavour, on whatever you want.

Usually, I would say that the role-redirector takes precedence in this. If the roleblocker targeted the Vig, for example, and the redirector would be redirecting away from the Vig, then the roleblocker would also be redirected. So why not do the same if he's redirecting away from himself?

[Mr Stoofer]

Also, I agree with Mr Stoofer.

Smilie sign please.

[Mastermind of Sin]

The roleblocker and redirector are both roles that need to be processed before any other roles, since they change the outcomes of night choices. Therefore, it depends on the flavor as to who goes first. Otherwise, the mod just needs to decide something beforehand to break any possible glitches.

[Rogueben]

I think that IH brings up a good point. It depends entirely on how you define the roles to work. If the role-blocker keeps the person inside then a one-shot vig should not be counted (haven't used their bullet). Whereas if the role-blocker prevented out in the open (eg knocked the vig while he was shooting) then the vig shot should be used.

[somestrangeflea]

2.What happens when a roleblocker blocks a one shot action? Is that one shot action used?

Under the assumption that a Roleblocker's target "will be treated as having not made a nightchoice", then I don't think a one shot action would be used up.

[Thesp]

There's a much better solution to this - don't use the roleblocker, which is a terrible role to begin with. Otherwise, there's plenty of wisdom here.

[Kelly Chen]

I think it's an interesting role, mainly when in town's possession. It's not a terrible role just because it's hard to use early game.

[Shanba]

Roleblockers > cops

[Zindaras]

I like roleblockers. They tend to be very important roles for scum (to be able to stop an outed cop without having to wait for a doc), and they can be pretty interesting to play as town as well.

I'd probably have the 1-shot vig use up his bullet. If he didn't, he would know he was blocked.

[Thesp]

I think it's an interesting role, mainly when in town's possession. It's not a terrible role just because it's hard to use early game.

It's not because it's hard to use early, it's because it can throw off game balance wildly as it relates to confirmable claims. It's nearly impossible to lynch a townie roleblocker late in the game (esp. in a large game) because their selected players are traceable, and can make sense. Likewise, if someone claims cop and gets blocked every night, presumably that roleblocker is not town. I think they're better for scum to have (it especially punishes town for poor play when a RB is in Mafia's hands), but I would almost

never

include a townie roleblocker in a game unless it's a prominent, deliberate feature of an open setup.

[IH]

There's a much better solution to this - don't use the roleblocker, which is a terrible role to begin with. Otherwise, there's plenty of wisdom here.

I expect this in essay form, especially since it's a great role for the scum, and can stop a game from being otherwise broken from a cop doc combo.

<.< >.>

It's not because it's hard to use early, it's because it can throw off game balance wildly as it relates to confirmable claims. It's nearly impossible to lynch a townie roleblocker late in the game (esp. in a large game) because their selected players are traceable, and can make sense. Likewise, if someone claims cop and gets blocked every night, presumably that roleblocker is not town. I think they're better for scum to have (it especially punishes town for poor play when a RB is in Mafia's hands), but I would almost never include a townie roleblocker in a game unless it's a prominent, deliberate feature of an open setup.

But then you have to contend with if the roleblocker is only complying with the town's wishes to look more town.

It's no less confirmable than a cop/scum rolecop, or particuarly a vig/sk to be honest. The point that it's mainly a scum role usually balances out the factor of confirmability.

The Blocker/Booster was a particuarly good way to handle it in Glork's Board Games mafia IMO.

[Kelly Chen]

I don't get it Thesp... If you think town roleblockers are too powerful then adjust the setup elsewhere. I don't think town roleblockers are particularly swingy the other direction, since if he screws up he just prevents an investigation or something. Compare that with what an errant vigilante can do.

As far as the unassailability of a town roleblocker claim... Surely a town tracker is even worse? Or a masonry? Looking back at your nurse essay it seems you even criticize backups on this point.


In my mind scum blockers are a cheap way to let scum neutralize an outed cop (who it's expected could receive protection). I find it a bit inelegant since it only works while that one specific scum lives; if he gets lynched D1 the balance could be screwed up significantly from what was planned.

I also find it a lot less interesting than a town blocker. In particular I'm interested in the scum having to make a decision regarding who to send to make the kill.