Solo play

[FrankJones]

I am actually very good with computers.

I do volunteer work here at BGA helping maintain a very popular game.

My partner and I often played the live version - and at times, when one of us was traveling, we played the online version. It's none of your business though.

And, NO, we did NOT play knowing we were both witnesses. We play by the rules. But when we were both witnesses, we won most of the time. Even though we also had to guard against a possible assassin.

You, on the other hand, said I must be lying when I said that two known witnesses can win almost every time - even though I provide a link to the game I played when you said that, and I won EASILY.

My partner and I, in real life, play with "under the rose", which makes it a lot harder - and we still win.

Remember, the original post in this thread was, "I only play when both players are witnesses and we still cannot win."

Well, I have no trouble winning under those conditions - and generally have no trouble winning even without that added cheat/houserule.

Don't worry, I never asked for the story of your life. I couldn't care less. Still I notice that, despite being able with computers, your messages have a poor layout in terms of spaces at the beginning of your sentences. Maybe you never used an unknown program called Word. Probably you will tell me you use a voice app, and it's all its fault. But I don't care.

Sweety, you still don't understand that providing ONE log of ONE won match doesn't prove you almost always win. You continue to be funny.

You're attacking a statement I did not make.

First of all, if you check my game history, you'll see multiple wins.

Don't attack my accomplishments at the game just because you're not able to replicate the same success.
Winning this game if both players quit and restart anytime there is an assassin - That's a trivially easy task.

As for my spacing, this is not a master's thesis, and I have no intention of proofreading every post for spacing or typos.

Please stop calling me "sweety". My name is FrankJones.

[Quiz mese]

You're attacking a statement I did not make.

First of all, if you check my game history, you'll see multiple wins.

Don't attack my accomplishments at the game just because you're not able to replicate the same success.
Winning this game if both players quit and restart anytime there is an assassin - That's a trivially easy task.

As for my spacing, this is not a master's thesis, and I have no intention of proofreading every post for spacing or typos.

Please stop calling me "sweety". My name is FrankJones.

Mmm i'm not sure i want to waste my time checking your game history. I'm just saying that linking a single victory means nothing. Can you comprehend the meaning of my sentence? Will you answer again to a twisted version of it?
Anyway, it was not developers' idea to create a game that can be easily won if both players are witnesses. So they failed in designing it, are you saying this?

What about that "trivially easy task" you talked about? I didn't understand it, this is not sarchasm. Who is doing it? You? Me? About your spacing, that's not a matter of this chat being a master's thesis. I am just underlining that you are adding useless spaces ON PURPOSE, and that's weird. Nothing more.

Finally, even if your name is Frank Jones, you are a sweet person, so why are you surprised that I call you sweety? Here is my tip: you stop answering me, and i won't have any reason to call you with any nickname, good or bad as it may be. This discussion has no reason to continue. You say you have excellent statistics? Ok. I doubt about it, but not enough to investigate.

[FrankJones]

Mmm i'm not sure i want to waste my time checking your game history. I'm just saying that linking a single victory means nothing. Can you comprehend the meaning of my sentence? Will you answer again to a twisted version of it?
Anyway, it was not developers' idea to create a game that can be easily won if both players are witnesses. So they failed in designing it, are you saying this?

It's easier for you to just dismiss my statements than to actually verify them. That would actually take effort on your part, whereas calling me a liar takes no effort.

With regard to the developer's intent:

The first person who posted in this thread said they specifically play with a house rule where they restart the game if there is an assassin.

With that game condition, yes, it is very easy to win, because no countermeasures need to be taken or planned for a possible assassin. Two witnesses with a face-up witness card have a MUCH easier time, for numerous fairly obvious reasons.

Also, without the hassle of agents (as with the "Under the Rose" expansion), all we need to do it get to the end of the road. It's not that difficult. There are lots of helpful cards.

I consider the game a great success when adding the full circle and "under the rose" variants that are included in the box.

[FrankJones]

Finally, even if your name is Frank Jones, you are a sweet person, so why are you surprised that I call you sweety? Here is my tip: you stop answering me, and i won't have any reason to call you with any nickname, good or bad as it may be. This discussion has no reason to continue. You say you have excellent statistics? Ok. I doubt about it, but not enough to investigate.

It is disrespectful to call a person something other than his or her name.

It's also rather bizarre that you are now blaming me for the fact that you are doing it simply because I responded to your post.

The OP in this thread was looking for help or advice. I offered some. Why exactly are you even in this discussion at all? You aren't offering anything constructive. You are calling me a liar and calling me "sweety" in a condescending manner, and being generally rude and insulting.

I am not the one who needs to bow out of this conversation - I would still be interested in playing this game with the OP in this thread.

I kindly ask that you exit the conversation so that people who actually enjoy this game can discuss strategy and play it if they desire.