My support somehow makes me look suspect? That's odd.
Go ahead and switch it to me. I don't mind in the slightest.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
[A] The Agency - GAME OVER -- SPIES WIN
- Thread starter ravenvii
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Go ahead and switch it to me. I don't mind in the slightest.
i am on board with fenris. i had the very same though.
but any combination is fine by me. not much would change i guess
pretty unlucky with the double strong leader.
but any combination is fine by me. not much would change i guess
pretty unlucky with the double strong leader.
Hmm... interesting. Is Fenris bringing up the switch because he does think WoodNUFC is suspicious or is he trying to protect QOS who could be a fellow spy in hiding? I don't know which is more plausible, but both are possibilities. We obviously won't know more until the vote results are in, but it does make QOS look innocent that she volunteered for Under Surveillance. Unless, both QOS and WoodNUFC are spies and she's taking the bullet. Wow, so many options. 
Tough choice Koodauw.
Tough choice Koodauw.
Hmm... interesting. Is Fenris bringing up the switch because he does think WoodNUFC is suspicious or is he trying to protect QOS who could be a fellow spy in hiding? I don't know which is more plausible, but both are possibilities. We obviously won't know more until the vote results are in, but it does make QOS look innocent that she volunteered for Under Surveillance. Unless, both QOS and WoodNUFC are spies and she's taking the bullet. Wow, so many options.
Tough choice Koodauw.
In other words, don't screw it up Koodauw!
Yeah - that was my point. I guess sarcasm doesn't come over well online.Aren't 2/3 of those the most useless cards in the game?
Gotcha. Yep, doesn't come over well online, most of the time at least.
I was curious, but since you always put a lot of emphasize on 'cleared' agents leading a mission (Fenrismethod Vol. 12.09) opposed to my 'field as many agents as you know about' going-by-the-gut way of life I thought you might rate Strong Leadership way higher than me.
way, way, waaaaay higher.
You'll never know..
I was curious, but since you always put a lot of emphasize on 'cleared' agents leading a mission (Fenrismethod Vol. 12.09) opposed to my 'field as many agents as you know about' going-by-the-gut way of life I thought you might rate Strong Leadership way higher than me.
way, way, waaaaay higher.
That's a good point, but I think it's a toss up as to which method is better. Having a "cleared" agent lead the team means you can trust that the agent is trying their best to put together a winning team. However, those efforts could fall short if they unknowingly put a spy on the team.
On the contrary putting known agents on the team as opposed to leading it increases our chances of getting the needed success votes. But, if we unknowingly have a spy leading the team then we can be sure that he/she will put a fellow spy on the team to try and sabotage the mission.
Well, I was half way joking with that commentary since Strong Leadership doesn't get magically more useful than most of the other plots but I don't think it's about one approach is right/wrong but that there could be circumstances where I'd prefer one over the other, and other situations where it's the opposite. But I start to waffle.
Sorry, for those that don't get it, but my boys are totally into the Teen Titans cartoon right now.
Results are in: the mission FAILED.
Success x3
Failure x1
woodNUFC voted success.
On phone, so will post narrative and formal status later tonight. You can go ahead with team selection, @Don't panic
Success x3
Failure x1
woodNUFC voted success.
On phone, so will post narrative and formal status later tonight. You can go ahead with team selection, @Don't panic
Bummer!
Well, we know Wood voted success and I know I voted success, so that leaves us with QOS or DP.
Hmm... we need to work through the implications of QOS or DP being a spy.
Well, we know Wood voted success and I know I voted success, so that leaves us with QOS or DP.
Hmm... we need to work through the implications of QOS or DP being a spy.
bummer indeed.
well, from my perspective obviously it is @mscriv or @QoS, and QoS undoubtly will claim that from her perspective it is me or mscriv.
if mscriv is bad, it means also wood is bad.
so i would have to pick either the mscriv/wood duo, or QoS. or go all-fresh avoiding all 3 of them
koodauw picked a bad team, either by design or by chance, although it was kind of the consensus team after mission 1. plus he didn't lie about me, so that is a (minor) plus. of course i don't think he would have called it different if he was a baddie, as that would mean exposing himself as a spy.
well, from my perspective obviously it is @mscriv or @QoS, and QoS undoubtly will claim that from her perspective it is me or mscriv.
if mscriv is bad, it means also wood is bad.
so i would have to pick either the mscriv/wood duo, or QoS. or go all-fresh avoiding all 3 of them
koodauw picked a bad team, either by design or by chance, although it was kind of the consensus team after mission 1. plus he didn't lie about me, so that is a (minor) plus. of course i don't think he would have called it different if he was a baddie, as that would mean exposing himself as a spy.
Yeah, I'm not a spy. Keep in mind I voted success in round 1. I have a quick conference call and then I'll post more thoughts. But obviously, shenanigans.
I'm a little confused about the under surveillance - shouldn't Wood have voted publicly in the thread.
If no one lied about the results of the eavesdrop or the Establish confidence then we know mscriv and DP are agents, and we've been told that Wood voted success - so it means QoS voted failure - so is a spy.
If someone lied we have two possibilites:
Wood lied about the establish confidence with mscriv. (so Wood and mscriv are both spies)
Koodauw lied about the eavesdrop on DP. (so Koodauw and DP are both spies)
@Don't panic Going to be interesting to see who you choose for your team.
If no one lied about the results of the eavesdrop or the Establish confidence then we know mscriv and DP are agents, and we've been told that Wood voted success - so it means QoS voted failure - so is a spy.
If someone lied we have two possibilites:
Wood lied about the establish confidence with mscriv. (so Wood and mscriv are both spies)
Koodauw lied about the eavesdrop on DP. (so Koodauw and DP are both spies)
@Don't panic Going to be interesting to see who you choose for your team.
So... with the above being said then who are you considering for your team?
I really think it's best that the PM is sent anyway to Ravenvii and the he will say what's the vote of the undersurveillance. Like that everyone vote at the same time (spy included). Like that even them won't know what's the vote. I think it's the spirit of the card
The only potential difference I can see is it doesn't allow the No Confidence plot to be used if the agent votes failure. I remember it being a potential failsafe last game if Koodauw voted failure.