Natural action resolution

[vezokpiraka]

I keep seeing rulesets that claim to use NAR, but instead resolve actions by the list that is for resolving conflicts that NAR uses.

For example I've seen games where the scum roleblocker wasn't blocked by the town jailkeeper because the list has blocks higher up than protects.

Can we clear up the confusion on this type of things? I don't want to play a game of guess what the mod meant when they stated something in the rules.

[quadz08]

DEAR MODS

THE LIST-BASED PRIORITY IN NAR IS ONLY WHEN ACTIONS OTHERWISE CONFLICT

PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE WIKI ARTICLE AGAIN, THANK YOU

[quadz08]

(The Golden Rule is the most important part of NAR, NOT the list)

[PokerFace]

For example I've seen games where the scum roleblocker wasn't blocked by the town jailkeeper because the list has blocks higher up than protects.

If roleblocker hitting jail then jail does nothing that night
If jail hits roleblock then blocker does nothing that night
If they hit each other than both go through and both are blocked, so protect is nullified

By golden rule I think that's the result^

[PokerFace]

Why does bus happen before block and redirect happen after block in that list?

Following the golden rule:
Blocking the busdriver should always cancel the bussing. Bus driver should be blockable.
If bus driver is not blocked then the block should be bussable.
Blocking the redirector should always cancel the redirecting. redirector should be blockable.
If Redirector is not blocked then the block should be redirectable.

I think that list needs editing so that it better follows the golden rule since everyone seems to forget the golden rule

[Zachrulez]

I think because the bus driver only really exists to screw with actions in the first place, but yeah... blocking it should stop the redirecting surely.

[quadz08]

blocking it would stop the redirecting according to NAR

the only time the list comes into play with RB / driver / redirector is if any two target each other; if it's only a one-way thing then they both resolve as you'd expect (that is, redirect targets RB who targets player X means that RB is redirected; RB targeting driver blocks the driver). If they target one another, THEN you use the list.

[PokerFace]

I'm arguing the list needs updated to better represent the golden rule that no one remembers

Bus driver only changes the destinations of the actions, correct?
Bus driver can not target himself, correct?

If all that is true, than bus driver targeting the blocker can not stop the blocking. Driver has to target the target of the blocker. And since Driver can't target himself Blocker should win when they target each other

If driver targets blocker and player X and blocker targets bus driver then driver gets blocked. End or story, right?
If driver targets player x and player y and blocker targets player x, than blocker now targets player y. correct?

If redirector targets blocker and player X and blocker targets redirector, the redirector is blocked. End or story, right?
If redirector targets blocker and player y and blocker targets player x, the blocker targets player y. correct?

If all that is true, then shouldn't bus driver and redirector BOTH be listed after blocker in the conflict list?

[quadz08]

Not end of story. With bus happening before block in the list, the driver action would go through on the blocker, and this the blocker would not block the driver.

Your description of block and redirect is correct.

If you want blocks to take priority, just use a modified version NAR in your games - put block before bus driver.

[Magua]

The other option is to not use NAR.

[PokerFace]

Ok i am confused

Bus driver only changes the destinations of the actions, correct?
Bus driver can not target himself, correct?

Your description of block and redirect is correct.

If all that is true, than bus driver targeting the blocker can not stop the blocking. Driver has to target the target of the blocker. And since Driver can't target himself Blocker should win when they target each other

If driver targets blocker and player X and blocker targets bus driver then driver gets blocked. End or story, right?
If driver targets player x and player y and blocker targets player x, than blocker now targets player y. correct?

Not end of story. With bus happening before block in the list, the driver action would go through on the blocker, and this the blocker would not block the driver.

but didn't you say

Your description of block and redirect is correct.

Then why is bus driver before block and redirector after blocker in the list when:

If all that is true, than bus driver targeting the blocker can not stop the blocking. Driver has to target the target of the blocker. And since Driver can't target himself Blocker should win when they target each other

I think the list is wrong and both bus driver and redirector need to be after blocker

[saulres]

I would think the order of redirect and block should be based on the setup and not on some arbitrary rulestate.

[Time Traveler]

let me break it down further

Driver's change destinations. They don't change the targeter. They change the targetee.

A Bus driver targeting the blocker would not stop the blocking. Driver has to target the targetee of the blocker. And since Driver can't target himself, he can't target the Blocker's targetee if the targetee is the bus driver.

here is another reason why bus driver should not be before roleblocker. If the driver was allowed to target himself well...
If driver targets driver and player X and blocker targets player x, than blocker now targets the driver...wait wtf! so the driving never happened now?
This is why driver's shouldn't be able to self target and this is also why they shouldn't beat out blockers. You're wrecking the space time continuum!

[Kagami]

Serial action resolution is superior, if you don't mind roleblockers not being omnipotent.

[FakeGod]

The other option is to not use NAR.

This.

[Cheery Dog]

What even is this argument now?

Why is it whenever someone talks about nar at all, an argument starts out?

[vezokpiraka]

What even is this argument now?

Why is it whenever someone talks about nar at all, an argument starts out?

I didn't know this before I posted it. Now I know. I'm glad that quadz said something related to the topic.

[vezokpiraka]

blocking it would stop the redirecting according to NAR

the only time the list comes into play with RB / driver / redirector is if any two target each other; if it's only a one-way thing then they both resolve as you'd expect (that is, redirect targets RB who targets player X means that RB is redirected; RB targeting driver blocks the driver). If they target one another, THEN you use the list.

No. You failed in understanding the golden rule.
Find an action (or a passive modifier, such as Bulletproof) such that its effect cannot possibly be modified by any other action.
Resolve it.
Repeat from step 1 until all actions are resolved.

If bus driver targets roleblocker and random person A and roleblocker targets bus driver, the bus driving doesn't happen. The bussing does't affect the blocking so it resolves without problems.

Bus driver is before roleblocking because if bus driver targets player A and player B and roleblocker blocks player A then player B gets blocked.
If blocking was before bus driving, then player A would get blocked and all the other actions would be redirected from A to B and from B to A.

Redirecting comes after because if the redirector gets blocked nothing happens even if he targeted the roleblocker. Any other scenario doesn't matter because even if A was redirected to B, if A got blocked he stays blocked.

[PokerFace]

If bus driver targets roleblocker and random person A and roleblocker targets bus driver, the bus driving doesn't happen. The bussing does't affect the blocking so it resolves without problems.

Thank you for putting that in simpler words. This is indeed why the blocker trumps the bus driver directly. When busser is the blocker's target, there is no conflict. Golden rule makes blocker win

Bus driver is before roleblocking because if bus driver targets player A and player B and roleblocker blocks player A then player B gets blocked.
If blocking was before bus driving, then player A would get blocked and all the other actions would be redirected from A to B and from B to A.

I realized this was true earlier, but I didn't realize this was why the busser was before blocker. So its before it in the list to handle the conflict where the busser's target is also the blocker's target.

When the two have the same target, is the only time they really conflict

I guess that makes sense since busser effects destinations, blocker effects actions, and redirector effects directions

[PokerFace]

For example I've seen games where the scum roleblocker wasn't blocked by the town jailkeeper because the list has blocks higher up than protects.

If roleblocker hitting jail then jail does nothing that night
If jail hits roleblock then blocker does nothing that night
If they hit each other than both go through and both are blocked, so protect is nullified

By golden rule I think that's the result^

does this answer your question well enough vezokpiraka?

[vezokpiraka]

For example I've seen games where the scum roleblocker wasn't blocked by the town jailkeeper because the list has blocks higher up than protects.

If roleblocker hitting jail then jail does nothing that night
If jail hits roleblock then blocker does nothing that night
If they hit each other than both go through and both are blocked, so protect is nullified

By golden rule I think that's the result^

does this answer your question well enough vezokpiraka?

MY example wasn't a question. The scum roleblocker targeted A. The town jailkeeper targeted roleblocker. The mod considered that A got blocked because roleblocker is higher up the list than protects while not giving any thought to the golden rule.

I know how actions should resolve.

[quadz08]

I just realize that I'm braining about bus driver incorrectly - was thinking it would redirect the targets to one another, rather than changing their places for

other

actions.

Ignore me while I re-brain about this

[PokerFace]

MY example wasn't a question. The scum roleblocker targeted A. The town jailkeeper targeted roleblocker. The mod considered that A got blocked because roleblocker is higher up the list than protects while not giving any thought to the golden rule.

I know how actions should resolve.

That mod was being dumb then. Golden rule makes jail keeper win. Scum roleblocker should be blocked and protected. A should be uneffected

Jailkeeper is rather interesting to resolve outside of your scenario. It has 2 actions that must target the same person. The roleblock resolves first and the protect resolves much later. It does not have one single action, just one single target. That's why if the blocker and jailkeeper targeted each other the result would be both being blocked and the protect never happening