War in the Palace

[Mr. Flay]

But a King could decide to lynch the other King. Leading to an Anarchist win.

That's not rational, though. It's an inverse Prisoner's Dilemma as currently written, and I don't love it.

Let the Kings both win if they endgame the Anarchist, as a special condition to their WC. With three people left, they still have to lynch

right

, but at least now they have an incentive to.

[Mr. Flay]

I'm not sure I see why the bombs have to be 'tailored' to each King. Why not just a two-shot Assassin? Are his chances that huge of hitting both (remember, if he only hits one as he dies, he throws the game to the other King)?

Overall I don't care much for the setup, but I like that idiosyncrasy even less.

[Mr. Flay]

Seems sensible to me, TH.

[Mr. Flay]

Hrm. I don't like reducing it to Kings-only... or at least, I don't think it's the same game. It might be fun.

[Mr. Flay]

OK, the Anarchist doesnt know the kings, right?

Have you been READING the thread?

Also, mass King Claim on any day is a fail. Anarchist wins via bomb kills.

Apparently not. People are only talking about King Claiming once the Anarchist/Assassin is dead.