Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Suggested house rule for playing with traitor

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    2,261

    Default Suggested house rule for playing with traitor

    Played the game once (5 player mode, I was the traitor). Seems really fun and will definitely be a contender with Battlestar Galactica on 5-player game nights. We took things way too seriously and ended up blowing like 5 hours on the game, had a lot of rules questions (most answered by the FAQ as we found out after the game), and I managed to effectively deceive everybody else allowing the agent to complete 2 objectives before I mistakenly revealed myself as the traitor at the wrong time. I thought that whenever the agent was within LOS of the traitor and a non-traitor at the same time, the traitor revealed, but upon closer reading of the rules, it seems like there is only one, very specific circumstance for revealing the traitor:
    1. Traitor gains line of sight to the agent.
    2. Agent chooses to lie about this.
    3. Another hunter gains line of sight to the agent within the same round.

    Since the agent can lie about his traitor's post-cognition, enhanced senses, etc. it seems like it could become obvious which hunter is the traitor but they still don't have to reveal (and as I discovered, it seems very disadvantageous to ever willingly reveal since the hunters can swiftly kill you and end the game regardless of what the other agent is doing). So I thought it would be reasonable to extend the concept of revoking vehicle access to actually declaring someone an agent, as follows: Once per game, 3 hunters may agree that the other hunter is the traitor and say they want him to reveal. This forces the other hunter to reveal his loyalty card. If he is the traitor, he becomes a second agent as described in the 5-player rules.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Denver-ish CO
    Posts
    105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheuslkr View Post
    it seems like there is only one, very specific circumstance for revealing the traitor:
    1. Traitor gains line of sight to the agent.
    2. Agent chooses to lie about this.
    3. Another hunter gains line of sight to the agent within the same round.
    I asked about this on BGG and the creator (Emerson) answered, saying that is not quite the right interpretation. He said (paraphrasing):
    The rulebook states, any time it becomes apparent who the traitor is..., and then it gives the line of sight explaination as an example. But it is just that, only one example of the many ways it may become apparent. There are many ways to 'prove' who the traitor is, and it is then apparent who he is, and he then must reveal. examples: Beast uses enhanced senses, "Agent is not close" then agent is spotted within 4 spaces of Beast. Beast is traitor. Another ex: agent hacks an objective and moves. motion detector used. "no motion detected". agent is spotted 3 or 4 spaces away from where he could hack at. motion detector user is clearly traitor.
    So according to him, there are many ways to show who is the traitor, and the line of sight is just an example, and possibly the most common way, but definitely not the only way it can become apparent.

    Hope this helps. You may have to do some major deducing to figure out ways to show who is the traitor. and be careful with the holo-decoy, you may 'prove' someone must be the traitor, and be completely wrong.
    I do like the idea of a once per game, unanimous vote to make a hunter reveal though. And the creator also said on BGG that he is totally open to any house rules that make the game more fun and/or playable.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    2,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maniacalraven View Post
    I asked about this on BGG and the creator (Emerson) answered, saying that is not quite the right interpretation. He said (paraphrasing):
    The rulebook states, any time it becomes apparent who the traitor is..., and then it gives the line of sight explaination as an example. But it is just that, only one example of the many ways it may become apparent. There are many ways to 'prove' who the traitor is, and it is then apparent who he is, and he then must reveal. examples: Beast uses enhanced senses, "Agent is not close" then agent is spotted within 4 spaces of Beast. Beast is traitor. Another ex: agent hacks an objective and moves. motion detector used. "no motion detected". agent is spotted 3 or 4 spaces away from where he could hack at. motion detector user is clearly traitor.
    So according to him, there are many ways to show who is the traitor, and the line of sight is just an example, and possibly the most common way, but definitely not the only way it can become apparent.

    Hope this helps. You may have to do some major deducing to figure out ways to show who is the traitor. and be careful with the holo-decoy, you may 'prove' someone must be the traitor, and be completely wrong.
    I do like the idea of a once per game, unanimous vote to make a hunter reveal though. And the creator also said on BGG that he is totally open to any house rules that make the game more fun and/or playable.
    The rulebook doesn't actually say that the traitor reveals any time it becomes apparent who they are; the exact wording is "Any time the agent becomes visible to a hunter while the agent was secretly in line of sight of the traitor, it becomes apparent who the traitor is," and the rulebook itself makes no allusion to there being other circumstances for revealing the traitor, although Word of Game Designer overrides that (and should probably be added to the FAQ). You're right about Holodecoy making it more difficult to "prove" who that traitor is though, and I'm also thinking with a traitor Prophet it would be really hard to objectively prove he's lying about where the agent was two turns ago, which is why I like the idea of a hunter vote that can take into account more subjective factors.

    Just a thought, but on the subject of the traitor, it would also be a little more flavorful if the agent didn't get to decide when to lie about information, but the traitor did. E.g. Beast uses enhanced senses, agent passes him a piece of paper saying "close" or "not close," and then Beast, who still doesn't actually know the agent's exact location or agenda, has to decide what to say. This could be extended to LOS spots (handing a piece of paper with "clear" or the agent's location, and then the traitor could decide whether to falsify this information, including by giving a completely false spot location), although at that point it might get overly complicated.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •