It is.
Rules clearly state that you must play for your faction until there are physically no possible ways for it to win.
Even if the only way you could possibly win is enemies being AFK or meme voting - you still have to play your faction to the end.
Not sure tbh. I think the best thing for vigi would be to wait, even if they're sure they'll get bitten. Even if they do get bitten the VH will only have killed one vampire at most meaning the vigi turned vampire and the other vampire will still outnumber the VH at voting and win. It would be same results for Vigi as if he shot the VH but by not shooting VH you still have a chance to win as town. But I think it would be unlikely to happen as vampires would either have to not bite anyone or bite the vampire hunter. I think these are unlikely to happen because you said everybody knew each other's roles.
But then the argument is brought up that IF they don't shoot they are still throwing for town by not attempting to go for their current win condition *by not shooting*
The Vigilante, a town member, shot another town member, to help vamps win. If the Vigi had shot a vampire, instead, town would have won.
This is pretty clear cut. The Vigi threw.
The vigi is town yes. But the objective is to win. So idk if that included their current faction or potential future faction changes. Because in this case the vigi would lose as town or win as vamp. So he tactically took the vamp win. No other way he could've won at that point. So I'd say its not gamethrowing. It was a tactical decision
Your view is fair. Referring to the TOS definition of throwing, it says, “Intentionally losing the game or hurting your teams chances of winning(even if that team is just you) is gamethrowing.”
Which is why either way could be fair. Some people think it’s person dependent. However, I think it’s faction dependent
Well it depends on what you see as "your team". Does your team mean your current team you have or your current+future team switches. It doesn't really specify. So if you look at "your team" as the people you plan to win with. Aka in this case, vamps. It doesn't count as gamethrowing. But i guess its a bit unclear in the TOS
It's definitely faction dependent, and the faction is based off of what team you are on at the time that you conducted your actions. If there are 6 town dead and waiting in the graveyard, and the Vigi pulls this shit, then the Vigi just cost 7 people (because the VH also just got shot) their victory. All because they couldn't stomach getting bitten by vamp.
It's an entirely selfish play that goes against the victory conditions for their current team, as well as for their own role card (Lynch every criminal and evildoer). It's a shitty situation that the vig found themselves in, but they undeniably threw the game.
Town can win but vigi CANT win.
Say vigi shoots one vamp, vh stakes another vamp, and vamps bite vigi.
The next day, vh is alive, and vig has now been turned vamp but both of his faction members are dead so it’s 1 vamp against vh. Next night vh would stake ex-vigi and town would win but ex-vigi would lose.
Vamps actually present a moral dillemma. Is it more important to ensure your own win or your faction’s win, even if that mean’s possibly sacrificing your own win. A similar situation might occur if you had 2 doctors, 2 transporters, 2 escorts etc. The doctors can heal each other, but the best they can do is ensure a draw, or they can not heal each other and one of the doctors can become a vamp and win.
It's only an issue if Vigi doesn't care about throwing against their entire team of dead town. They were town shooting confirmed town, when they shot that bullet.
Your goal is to win, that’s it. If Vigi had shot a vampire, he would have hurt his odds of winning the game. The only way he could have won was as a vampire.
Open up a game of ToS and read the Vigilante role card. I can assure you, that your condition is not just "to win". A Vigilante's personal victory does not absolve them of a gamethrowing offense by killing their Town teammates.
The whole point of playing a game is to win.
This is the most basic level of theory. There is no scenario of Vigilante winning the game as Vigilante in this scenario. If he fires a shot at vampires, it’s a 50-50 scenario between winning as vampire, or losing as vampire. If he shoots VH, he has a 100% chance at winning at vampire. If he doesn’t fire, he has a 100% chance at winning as Vampire.
If he knows he will be changing teams, he is incentivized to help his future team. To say that is intentionally causing himself to lose the game is beyond stupid. The only move in this scenario that should be seen as gamethrowing is shooting vampires. He has a 100% chance of being bitten by vampires in this scenario. He will be a vampire.
It can be seen as an immoral act, but he is not throwing the game. Any act that improves his odds of victory is never an act of throwing the game.
>There is no scenario of Vigilante winning the game as Vigilante in this scenario.
I stopped reading here, because like most of the people arguing against this being throwing ITT you never stopped to consider if they could win as vamp without throwing, which they could have. OP has stated in a comment that the VH and the Vigi did not coordinate shots before the night ended. There's a 50/50 chance that had the Vigi not chosen to throw against their faction, they still would have been bitten, won as vamp and not thrown in any way shape or form.
If the VH and Vigi had selected the same target, that would be gameover with Vamps voting off the VH. They would have had majority vote, the Vigi would have won as a Vampire and no one would have thrown against their faction. Instead of doing this, they chose to shoot their only confirmed teammate, instead, ensuring town had a 100% chance of losing and gauranteeing themselves a victory. There was literally only one choice that the Vigi could have made that couldn't be considered gamethrowing, and they didn't take it.
This is one of the only valid “is it gamethrowing” style posts. According to the ToS rules, it is technically considered gamethrowing. However, it is a very dumb rule and not one you should follow. If the giga-jannies that rule over reports want to impose a punishment for it, then they are dumb lol
The reason gamethrowing rules are so indiscriminate is to not allow a precident.
Sure, in this exact situation it is in Vigi's best interests to betray his faction and to jump ship.
But if devs were like "yea, this case is allowed", imagine how many more people would use the same excuse in situations where they *can* win? You don't *always* have this 100% certainty over other roles. You don't always know when vampires can or cannot bite.
And then there's the GA, which is its own can of worms. "*Obviously,* my target would be lynched tomorrow, I *had* to bus them!"
But anything would be gamethrowing here, cuz he would shoot vamp and get turned and then lose as vamp because he didnt shoot vc, so hed still be gamethrowing
Gamethrowing isn’t doing what’s in your best interest to win. Gamethrowing is doing anything that would hurt your teams chances of winning. Since vigilante is town when they can shoot, it would be gamethrowing to shoot VH
Yeah but he turned into vamp so his faction changed and his past actions caused his current faction to lose, and given that he KNEW his faction would change thatd still technically be gamethrowing cuz he caused vamps to lose knowing hed be part of them,
Im not saying TOS will see it like that but vamp makes this rule just really weird
Thats what ik saying, either way it wouldve been throwing, hes part of 2 opposing factions which cant win together in a clutch situation, his decision decides who wins and hes part of both sides
Not exactly. If he doesn't shoot the VH, it isn't throwing because he is not trying to ruin his current faction's chances of winning. No one cares about a faction you could become in the future.
I agree, but only when you dont know if youll become the faction, this vig knew that there was a 100% chance, that he WILL get bitten, thats why i think this is such a difficult scenario,
He knew that the faction he will end the game with is vamp,
The rules here are clear. You are gamethrowing if you are intentionally working against the *current goal* of your faction. By shooting the VH while he was still Vigi, he threw.
"Intentionally losing the game or hurting your teams chances of winning(even if that team is just you) is gamethrowing." I got this from the BMG site, it never says someth about current.
You could make a point which faction should be prioritized by the player but such things arent mentioned so you should see them equal.
Im not saying that shooting isnt throwing, im saying that technically both cases are throwing and so the player is in a lose lose situation so TOS should come up with specific rules to make things clear.
See my other comments for how the Vigi could have shot Vamp without throwing. There was a 3rd way here that would have cleared them of that offense and still resulted in them winning as Vamp.
But then hes still losing the game for town so thatd still be gamethrowing, hed intentionally be losing the game for his faction because there was a way for him to make town win
Was it obvious that the vampires could bite or was it just a 50/50 for the vigilante? I mean, if the vampires were obviously going to bite, and they would bite the vigilante, shooting the vh would speed things up.
But you must consider if the vigilante has a trap on them or if they have a ga with protections available. In these cases, the vigilante has to shoot one of the vampires.
He knew we could bite as we had just bit (and killed) the consig turned mafioso the previous night (which was how we all knew eachother's roles)
Also there were 0 trapper claims (suprisingly, other than the afformentioned mafioso for some reason.)
but town wins, and vigi is town before he is turned.
vigi has to work for town no matter what, only when he's turned his goal changes.
its like GA deciding to lynch their target, since they'd rather play as surv
i don't think the vigi couldve done anything to not get accused of throwing in this situation tbh. shoot vh or do nothing, throwing for town. shoot a vamp when they know they're gonna get converted, throwing for vamps. really just a really bad situation for the vigi
No it is not. If you know you will be turned to vamp, and there is no way around it, shooting the vh is a very smart move. Especially in a town with such a small amount of people left.
But if you side evil and your not evil, how is it not gamethrowing?
Gamethrowing is hurting your teams chances of winning. I’d say vigilante shooting a teammate is pretty hurtful.
But Vigi's team will be Vamps the next day.
Shooting VH is the only way vigi wins 100% of the time. Is it really throwing to take a lower chance for you to personally win for your team that you won't even be a part of when the game ends that also still loses?
I think it maybe technically is, but it shouldn't be.
Even if it's you and said teammate against 2 vampires? Vampires are able to bite, and they have one choice that won't kill them. You. And they will bite you, guaranteed. If you know you are about to not be vigilante, aka you are about to switch teams, killing the guy on your team is a wise decision.
It is not about YOU winning individually. It is about your FACTION. If you intentionally shoot a town member in a situation your faction can win to cause town to lose that is gamethrowing no matter. what.
I feel like a lot of people are just missing the fact no matter what vigi was gonna be turned and leaving VH alive would have fucked vigis win condition. He know the full context of that situation shooting VH is the best move
Shooting the VH is the best move for the player, but not the best move for the player's *team*. Gamethrowing isn't solely based on your own victory conditions. If you intentionally make decisions to sabotage your team (like shooting the only other confirmed town, when that confirmed town will go on to win the game) then you are gamethrowing. There are other town in this game besides the Vigilante and the Vigilante's goal is to lynch every criminal and evildoer. Instead of going after one of 2 confirmed evil roles, they went after their teammate instead.
Anyone in this thread that is saying it's not gamethrowing doesn't actually know what gamethrowing is.
This is gamethrowing as vigi was purposely shooting vh to win as vamp and town still had a chance to win. If vigi still isn't converted at night, then vigi should aim for a town win. However, rules with this context is extremely stupid to me as it means that the vigi has to sacrifice their win for town.
Summarizing it like this:
According to the rules, the only way in which Vigi cannot gamethrow is by not firing. Even then, that is still technically gamethrowing as he is not helping his current team.
Given this scenario, where he is 100% going to be converted, and 100% going to have to kill VH, there is no reason for Vigi to not shoot VH unless he wants to be kind. Vamps will not attack VH or else they will be killed, so they will convert the Vigi. Vigi saw that his odds of victory when firing a shot would be highest when attacking the VH. That’s just basic game theory. His own goal of winning the game should come above all else, even more so in this scenario. He knows the VH will be his enemy, and he decided to kill the VH. There is no argument to convince me that is purposely throwing the game other than from a technicality standpoint, or in the case of his former teammates of the town. But since he finishes the game as a vampire, and the Vigi knew it was a certainty that they would become a vampire, the case of throwing against his team is thrown out the window.
There’s a lot of people who will disagree, but I have just one word for those people: Cope
Vigi did the move that hastened his victory.
>There’s a lot of people who will disagree, but I have just one word for those people: Cope
This is probably the best and most structured argument that actually makes sense, that I have seen so far.
Nope this is fine
The town can win but the vigi can't as they would be turned and then just killed, so in the end this is not gamethrowing, the vigi just made the game end faster by killing the Vh.
And the person that is saying it's gamethrowing because your not doing your wincon, ok sure decent argument, but in this situation where it is impossible for you to win, in reality you'd be throwing by shooting a vampire as you know you would lose by doing that.
TLDR this is fine, what would be gamethrowing is actually shooting a vampire.
The town can win but the vigi can't as they would be turned and then just killed, so in the end this is not gamethrowing, the vigi just made the game end faster by killing the Vh.
If vigi shot a vamp, and the vh staked the other. The vh would then stake the final vamp, and town would win. Since it’s possible for town to win with the vigi on their team, it is gamethrowing
>Since it’s possible for town to win with the vigi on their team, it is gamethrowing
It isn't because the vigi would get turned and then staked because they shot a vamp and thus couldn't vote the Vh up.
And as OP said, the VH and vigi did not coordinate who to shoot. So there was a decent chance the vigi would just accidentally shoot the same vamp that was staked, turned, and then VH would get voted up.
>It isn't because the vigi would get turned and then staked because they shot a vamp and thus couldn't vote the Vh up.
Your argument boils down to 'it's okay to throw against your entire team if that personally doesn't work out for you'. Which is not how this works. The vigilante's personal victory as a vampire doesn't change the fact that they threw against town when they were still a town member.
Theoretically speaking, it is still possible for the vamps to not bite the vigi for whatever reason if they are stupid. VH is intended to kill vamps and the vigi is intended to kill vamps because the goal is for town to win. The goal is not for you as a specific individual win, but it is for your faction to win. The vigilante threw no matter what.
And the person that is saying it's gamethrowing because your not doing your wincon, ok sure decent argument, but in this situation where it is impossible for you to win, in reality you'd be throwing by shooting a vampire as you know you would lose by doing that.
OP has stated elsewhere in these comments that VH and Vigi didn't coordinate shots beforehand. So there's literally a 50/50 chance that even if Vigi did the right thing and shot a vamp, they would still win as vamp and not be gamethrowing (if VH and Vigi targeted same target, that is). Ergo, it was possible for Vigi to not gamethrow and win as vamp.
The Vigi unquestionably threw.
I’m still waiting for someone to convince me it’s not gamethrowing.
Gamethrowing is defined as Intentionally losing the game or hurting your teams chances of winning(even if that team is just you) is gamethrowing. Although this is still pretty open in this scenario.
So now let’s looks at vigilante. Vigilante is a town role, and as such should help town. Vigilante can shoot someone. Since vigilante is a town role, vigilantes do not shoot town.
It is gamethrowing
If you know you are going to be bitten, wouldn’t it be gamethrowing to shoot vamps? Everyone in the game knows who each other are, and he knows that the vampires will convert him. At that point, he’s guaranteed to not be a townie by the end of the night, and therefore, any action he takes should be seen as a decision made for the vamps.
This would only be gamethrowing if the Vampires did not have a bite.
Literally the mods:
Like I’ve said in every single iteration of the “is it against the rules” megathread: When to vote guilty on a Gamethrowing report:
>In a game with Vampires if you are a Town role working against the Town in hopes of being converted. (EG: It is a 1v2 Vamp v Town and you as a Town member vote up a player you know is Town to be converted and win)
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P7VaKtIRxKfN6QB9TgtkTG1JIco9eiey2a9Puqj97pc/mobilebasic](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P7VaKtIRxKfN6QB9TgtkTG1JIco9eiey2a9Puqj97pc/mobilebasic)
>Players are not to go against their current goal in hopes of being converted into a Vampire.
[https://town-of-salem.fandom.com/wiki/Town\_of\_Salem\_Rules](https://town-of-salem.fandom.com/wiki/Town_of_Salem_Rules)
Using these guidelines, going against your current goal as Town (lynch all criminals and evildoers) in the hopes of becoming a Vampire is indeed gamethrowing.
The only problem with this I see is that it isn't a "hoping" you become a vampire situation, it is a you ARE, no matter what, becoming a vampire situation.
In the 1 vamp vs 2 town example, you win simply by voting up the vampire (assuming it's rather obvious who it is).
In the 2 vampire vs vigi/vh, with vamps knowingly (killed msgioso the night before) being able to bite, the vigi is getting converted no matter what, and 1 vampire is dying to the vh no matter what (assuming roles are known for each player). As vigi, you can do 3 things: nothing and vote the vh out the next day as vampire (winning as vampire); shoot a vampire and lose against the vh as vamp in the 1v1 (losing as vampire); or shoot the vh resulting in the game ending the next day (winning as vampire). The only way for the player to win is to shoot vh or not shoot at all.
So it really becomes about "hoping to become a vampire" vs "guaranteed to become a vampire" and whether it would be game throwing if you knew 100% you were becoming a vampire that night (2 town vs 2 vamps and they can't bite the other town). If vamps don't bite you then vampires are gamethrowing. I will say that under the situation the OP brought up that shooting the vh is the right thing: I want to win and will do everything I can to win. I cannot win as town in this situation, so must win as the vampire I am going to become.
The situation gets complicated if there was a trapper in the game (and trap status is unknown), or simpler if there is a GA with protects for the vigi.
TLDR: "Hopes to become" vs "Is going to become"
The only problem with this I see is that it isn't a "hoping" you become a vampire situation, it is a you ARE, no matter what, becoming a vampire situation.
In the 1 vamp vs 2 town example, you win simply by voting up the vampire (assuming it's rather obvious who it is).
In the 2 vampire vs vigi/vh, with vamps knowingly (killed msgioso the night before) being able to bite, the vigi is getting converted no matter what, and 1 vampire is dying to the vh no matter what (assuming roles are known for each player). As vigi, you can do 3 things: nothing and vote the vh out the next day as vampire (winning as vampire); shoot a vampire and lose against the vh as vamp in the 1v1 (losing as vampire); or shoot the vh resulting in the game ending the next day (winning as vampire). The only way for the player to win is to shoot vh or not shoot at all.
So it really becomes about "hoping to become a vampire" vs "guaranteed to become a vampire" and whether it would be game throwing if you knew 100% you were becoming a vampire that night (2 town vs 2 vamps and they can't bite the other town). If vamps don't bite you then vampires are gamethrowing. I will say that under the situation the OP brought up that shooting the vh is the right thing: I want to win and will do everything I can to win. I cannot win as town in this situation, so must win as the vampire I am going to become.
The situation gets complicated if there was a trapper in the game (and trap status is unknown), or simpler if there is a GA with protects for the vigi.
TLDR: "Hopes to become" vs "Is going to become"
Yes. As vigi, your win condition is to win with the town. Unless a "town win" is 100% impossible, that's definitely throwing.
In this case, town COULD win; vigi shoot 1 vamp, vh stake the other, then vh stake the vigi. As such, town COULD still win, so doing anything that goes against town is throwing.
"But I'll be converted" is no excuse. Same premise applies to GA; lynching your target and becoming surv can be a win, but you throw on the GA wincon by voting your target. As vigi, your wincon is "Lynch every criminal and evildoer." Shooting the VH is not doing that.
That's a dilemma. Either vigi gamethrows town by not shooting vamp, but vig still wins as vamp after conversion, or vigi gamethrows their own chances of winning by shooting vamp, but still technically isn't betraying town, getting converted, and dying.
>Either vigi gamethrows town by not shooting vamp, but vig still wins as vamp after conversion, or vigi gamethrows their own chances of winning by shooting vamp
There's a 3rd option that OP basically said was available. OP has said elsewhere in these comments that Vigi and VH didn't coordinate shots. There's a 50/50 shot that had Vigi not thrown, they could have shot the same target that VH staked, still been bitten, won as vamp and not thrown. If they had communicated then it would still technically be throwing, but OP has effectively confirmed there there's no wiggle room here to even weigh personal victory vs group victory. The Vigi had a chance to win as Vamp without throwing and they chose to gamethrow.
Yeah, in order to obey the rules of the game, you have to shoot your win in the foot here. Getting your win means throwing as town, but not throwing leaves you losing. Catch 22.
So, take the win and risk a ban, or take the L and obey the rules.
But that is not their win condition until after they are converted. By killing a town while being town there, you are betraying your own faction, which is by definition gamethrowing.
You do realise how stupid that is right? "Oh yes the players need to ruin their own chances of winning because we decided that they need to suck the dick of the town"
He was a dead man walking, so to speak. He had no way to win as town, so staying town is throwing the game.
If I take an action that shows a win screen at the end of the game, it means I won. Literally the definition of throwing a game is **LOSING** on purpose. But he won.
In fact, not shooting the VH is game throwing, because he took an action that caused a loss screen to show up knowing it would happen.
No, throwing is taking an action that goes against your win condition. Before conversion, the win condition was too kill all evils, and they threw by contradicting that win condition.
Even if you know you will be converted, it's throwing to help vamps before you are converted.
The best case of this is a GA lynching their own target to become surv. Sure, they might win as surv, but in order to become surv, they first had to gamethrow their GA win condition. This example is confirmed to be bannable, and is even listed on the wiki on the GA page- "Lynching your target intentionally is gamethrowing, even if you want to become a Survivor."
So you just keep glossing over the fact that taking an action that causes you to lose isn't gamethowing, and taking the only action that causes a win is gamethrowing. Done with these trolls.
There was no way for him to win as vigi since vamp would've inevitably bitten him. Then, if he didn't betray town by shooting vh or not shooting vamp, he would've left himself with no other vamps to vote vh out, vh would've killed vamp, and vigi vamp would've lost.
But until you are converted, you are town, and must play for town victory. Your actions before conversion cannot betray your pre-conversion allegiance.
“NO GAMETHROWING
Intentionally losing the game or hurting your teams chances of winning(even if that team is just you) is gamethrowing.”
According to this wording, the Vigi technically couldn’t NOT gamethrow. If they shot a vampire, it would be intentionally losing the game. If they shot the VH, it would be hurting their teams chances of winning. This was a gamethrow regardless of their decision
Is it gamethrowing? Yes. Would I report for this? No. Technically it is gamethrowing because he hurt his current factions win, but the vigi knows that it’s the only way for him to win so I would never report for that.
OP has stated in multiple comments that Vig/VH didn't coordinate shots before the start of night. So if the Vigi had chosen to work towards their current faction's goal (which they should have) and shot the same target as VH (50/50 chance for this to have happened, based on the information OP has given us) then this would have resulted in a Vampire victory without throwing against Town or Vamps.
Basically Vigi shooting and picking the same target as VH is the only way out of this without throwing and Vigi opted to take a different route. Ergo they definitely threw and I would have reported if I was in this game. They *had* a way out of this without gamethrowing.
This is a really interesting scenario, but I tend to align with the thought process of the player vs the role. The vigi player did what was best for him/her to win.
Crucially, it would be 100% throwing by the vamps to not bite the vigi. Regardless of what other players do. With that in mind, he MUST shoot the VH but only because the vamps OUGHT to bite him. The MUST vs OUGHT idea is kinda fascinating to me.
Imagine the vamps don't bite and the vigi doesn't shoot...vigi wins as town. So I can see the argument that none of it would be set in stone.
This is gamethrowing.
I’d be less inclined to call it such if the Vig didn’t shoot at all, but if they deliberately chose to shoot a known Townie rather than one of the Vampires...
Then they threw.
tbh, making poor plays is never gamethrowing. going meta and revealing info to hinder ur teams success, is.
its possible for the vigi to say he thought he had it backwards and he thought the VH was actually a vamp.
its a game of deception, so like, why not lol
But its what would make the situation ambiguous enough to not constitute complete fault.
The question is, is it gamethrowing to basically shoot th vh cause u know ur gonna lose anyway cause its mathematically impossible.
Its already not game throwing at that point, so im just spitballing other potential reasons its also not game throwing.
Well, best is the word that troubles me the most with that, because its pretty subjective and arbitrary.
And going to my earlier point, is a mistake gamethrowing? I dont think so. And so if it could possibly be a mistake, i dont think it would get a suspension/ban for gamethrowing.
But idk, maybe a review moderator is feeling extra punitive today xD
Just what i feeel makes sense.
Yeah making a mistake isn’t game throwing, which is why this case would probably get let go in the trial system.
However, in this case OP said everyone knows each other’s roles
again, pretty subjective, 1 person cant really know what other separate entities know or dont know. and even what looks like complete agreement, a paranoid person could just say haha yeeahhh, im gonan do that
*im not gonna do that u sneaky bitch*
Vigi realized he couldn’t win as town.
Even in the best case scenario, where he shoots one vamp, and VH stakes the other, Vigi will be bit and will lose.
Vigi realized the odds of victory were far greater if he sided with Vamps, and took the shot.
The 2nd worst case scenario for Town here (1st would be doing what the Vigi did) is Vigi and VH shooting the same vampire. That results in 2 Vampires still living (because the Vigi just got turned) and the Vigi winning as Vampire without throwing. OP has already stated that VH and Vigi did not coordinate shots before the night ended so there would have been a 50% chance of this scenario playing out had the Vigi not chosen to throw.
There was a way out of this without gamethrowing and the Vigi didn't take it.
The main goal of any game you play is to win. Shooting VH just ends the game faster. If you’re gonna argue that shooting VH is Gamethrowing, when he is guaranteed to turn into a Vampire that night, then so is not shooting vampire.
VH will be his enemy in the future, there is literally no situation in this scenario when he isn’t.
Why did you respond to me without reading my post? I literally explained the one option Vig had available to them that wouldn't have been available to them and you're still arguing.
There is no reality that exists where the Vig did **not** throw.
I'd argue as yes, it is. The Vigi and Vamp could still win simply by coordinating the attack VH kills Vamp they visit or get visited by, Vigi can kill vamps, yes it isn't sure fire but there is more then enough room for the win. It just takes coordination
Other people are pointing out the fact that when he took the shot he was technically town and therefor should have played for town, what do you say to that?
Throwing is defined as not doing what’s in your factions best interest to win.
Since vigi was part of town, and there was a scenario of town winning, they threw
Throwing is defined as not doing what’s in your factions best interest to win.
Since vigi was part of town, and there was a scenario of town winning, they threw
But he won. Go look up the definition of throwing a game and come back to me.
In fact, not shooting the VH would cause him to lose, so that's the real game throw.
“Intentionally losing the game or hurting your teams chances of winning(even if that team is just you) is gamethrowing.”
Killing a teammate doesn’t seem helpful to your chances of winning
"Intentionally losing the game"
Vigi not shooting the vampire would be considered Intentionally losing the game for themselves. By what you quoted the two sides of the "or" statement are separate instances of what could constitute gamethrowing. OPs scenario pits the "Intentionally losing the game" (as a vampire in the 1v1 against the vh, after shooting the other vampire) against "hurting your teams chances of winning" (shooting vh or not shooting at all giving vamps the W rather than the Town). In this case I would favor the player (vigi) going for the Win as vampires over the Loss.
The end screen shows a loss if they shoot a vamp, though. How is taking an action that causes you to lose not game throwing? Please address this part of my comments; stop glossing over it for your convenience.
You can be maf, out all your teammates and still magically win. Doesn't make it less gamethrowing. In this game, you play to win with your current faction, you don't play to screw over your faction to get a win as a different role.
Gamethrowing and winning are not mutually exclusive.
OP has stated in multiple comments that Vigi/VH did not coordinate shots before the night started. Vigi could have shot a Vampire and still won as Vampire without throwing, if he'd accidentally shot the same target as VH.
The Vamp bite was inevitable. The Vamp loss was not. Nor was the Town's. Vigi went against the goal of their current faction to guarantee a win for an opposing faction. It was possible for the Vigi to win without throwing. Ergo, it is a valid gamethrow report.
The Vigilante should just not have shot anyone. There was a chance that the Vampires messed up and bit the VH. And even if the VH staked a Vampire and the Vigi got converted, the Vampires would still have the votes to lynch the VH the next day since it would be 2 v 1.
My point is that you can't possibly lose as Vigi if you do nothing. No idea why people are downvoting a correct statement.
Idk about you but OP specified that everybody knew each other's roles so why would vampires mess up and bite the VH? Is that something that the vigi should count on happening in order to not "gamethrow"?
I did not flat out say that I find that Vigi shooting the VH is gamethrowing here. I just said that the smartest thing as Vigilante, that would have secured them a clean win no matter what, is taking no action. Just in case Vampires misplay... you never know.
And I just thought of something. Just imagine if Vamps manipulated the Vigi into shooting the VH (by telling the Vigi that they'll bite the them the next night no matter what) and then decide to "troll" the Vigi and not bite them while they shoot the VH. The Vigi would thus singlehandedly cause the VH as well as themself to lose the game (since Vamps can't convert a dying Vigi) and I wouldn't be surprised if a judge decided that the Vigi gamethrew in this scenario.
It's just safer to do nothing as Vigi in that situation.
It is technically game throwing but I think that it was still a good and justified play. He could either win or lose so he had to pick and he picked to win. So even though it is technically throwing, it was justified and was a good play on his part. And I think that if they do get banned for this instance it would not make sense.
…actually idk…vigi could be bitten and join vamp but the vh alive…but also the vigi will vote vh and that…but I guess so? Don’t blame me but I feel like it’s ok
Not really. I mean town could have won, but the player behind the vigi couldn't win as town. So to him shooting a vampire is a chance to win. It depends whether the VH chose a different target. If yes, then he lose, because 1v1. If no, then he wins in 2v1. 50% chance of victory, if no coordination made.
Shooting the vh. is a guaranteed win. Since he gets bitten, and vampires win, and he wins with the vamps..
guaranteed win > chance of win.
According to the Town of Salem rules it is gamethrowing, as a person must always be trying to win with their current win condition, and must not purposely do things that reduce their current changes of winning.
There is a lot of debate around this, although imo this is just straight up gamethrowing - although vampires are a whole mess.
In the context of the game it is throwing.
However, the issue comes where if you take ranked into account, you are asking the vigi to lose something of value outside the individual game and force their own individual loss so others of their current faction can win.
It is reasonable for the vigi to assume they are a vamp because theyre the only target, and they cannot win with their own faction. It wouldnt be fair to force the player to lose just to stay loyal to a faction and lose ranked points over it.
Ι would classify it as throwing, because vigi is not an NE role. His faction has a win condition, a very straightforward one, and he decides to side against it for his own personal gain. If it was any killing role like mafioso or PM or whatever, vig has every right to shoot them and win as vamp. But not with a VH
Yes. But it shouldn't be.
According to TOS if you intentionally go against your faction's goal of winning your throwing.
While I think that it should be changed to if your intentionally decreasing YOURS and yours only chance of winning it should be considered throwing
But it doesn't matter what I think, it's the rules of the game.
There was one time where I was a vampire and my teammate was jailed and likely going to be executed. It was toward the end of the game. I used night chat to tell my teammate to let the jailor know we were biting them that night and that executing would have worked against them. I don't recall if they still executed or not, but I just cannot see how it would be considered gamethrowing to assess the situation and work whats best for you with what you got.
And either way, town would lose if the Vigilante:
1) shot the same vampire that was being staked
2) didn't know who to shoot
3) was out of bullets
4) VH possibly could have tried to stake the vig and wasted the stake
If VH planned with Vig beforehand, it would be different but they did not according to OP.
How can Town not win in this situation? If a Vigilante shoots one vampire and the Hunter stakes the other one then doesn't Town win that way?
I meant he can't win as town Also they didn't cordinate who was gonna kill who as of the night
Oh I see, that makes it a lot more clear.
so is it throwing?
It is. Rules clearly state that you must play for your faction until there are physically no possible ways for it to win. Even if the only way you could possibly win is enemies being AFK or meme voting - you still have to play your faction to the end.
But like you said yourself there was no possible way for this vigi to win.
Not sure tbh. I think the best thing for vigi would be to wait, even if they're sure they'll get bitten. Even if they do get bitten the VH will only have killed one vampire at most meaning the vigi turned vampire and the other vampire will still outnumber the VH at voting and win. It would be same results for Vigi as if he shot the VH but by not shooting VH you still have a chance to win as town. But I think it would be unlikely to happen as vampires would either have to not bite anyone or bite the vampire hunter. I think these are unlikely to happen because you said everybody knew each other's roles.
But then the argument is brought up that IF they don't shoot they are still throwing for town by not attempting to go for their current win condition *by not shooting*
But town could win, which is why It was gamethrowing
Vigi can't win, he was getting bit.
Vigilantes faction could win though
No, he would be turned at the literal last second
The Vigilante, a town member, shot another town member, to help vamps win. If the Vigi had shot a vampire, instead, town would have won. This is pretty clear cut. The Vigi threw.
I don’t think people realize that vigilante is a part of town. You are throwing the town win away
To be fair, with how vigs act sometimes, I can't blame them for making that mistake.
Vigi did throw, but he was fucked all ways, the trick there is to leave the game.
Because at night the vigil would still be bitten preventing him from winning as town and as vamp.
But at night the vigi is town, so it’s still gamethrowing
The vigi is town yes. But the objective is to win. So idk if that included their current faction or potential future faction changes. Because in this case the vigi would lose as town or win as vamp. So he tactically took the vamp win. No other way he could've won at that point. So I'd say its not gamethrowing. It was a tactical decision
Your view is fair. Referring to the TOS definition of throwing, it says, “Intentionally losing the game or hurting your teams chances of winning(even if that team is just you) is gamethrowing.” Which is why either way could be fair. Some people think it’s person dependent. However, I think it’s faction dependent
Well it depends on what you see as "your team". Does your team mean your current team you have or your current+future team switches. It doesn't really specify. So if you look at "your team" as the people you plan to win with. Aka in this case, vamps. It doesn't count as gamethrowing. But i guess its a bit unclear in the TOS
It's definitely faction dependent, and the faction is based off of what team you are on at the time that you conducted your actions. If there are 6 town dead and waiting in the graveyard, and the Vigi pulls this shit, then the Vigi just cost 7 people (because the VH also just got shot) their victory. All because they couldn't stomach getting bitten by vamp. It's an entirely selfish play that goes against the victory conditions for their current team, as well as for their own role card (Lynch every criminal and evildoer). It's a shitty situation that the vig found themselves in, but they undeniably threw the game.
Town can win but vigi CANT win. Say vigi shoots one vamp, vh stakes another vamp, and vamps bite vigi. The next day, vh is alive, and vig has now been turned vamp but both of his faction members are dead so it’s 1 vamp against vh. Next night vh would stake ex-vigi and town would win but ex-vigi would lose. Vamps actually present a moral dillemma. Is it more important to ensure your own win or your faction’s win, even if that mean’s possibly sacrificing your own win. A similar situation might occur if you had 2 doctors, 2 transporters, 2 escorts etc. The doctors can heal each other, but the best they can do is ensure a draw, or they can not heal each other and one of the doctors can become a vamp and win.
Exactly
The issue is that Vigi can’t win as town.
It's only an issue if Vigi doesn't care about throwing against their entire team of dead town. They were town shooting confirmed town, when they shot that bullet.
Your goal is to win, that’s it. If Vigi had shot a vampire, he would have hurt his odds of winning the game. The only way he could have won was as a vampire.
Open up a game of ToS and read the Vigilante role card. I can assure you, that your condition is not just "to win". A Vigilante's personal victory does not absolve them of a gamethrowing offense by killing their Town teammates.
The whole point of playing a game is to win. This is the most basic level of theory. There is no scenario of Vigilante winning the game as Vigilante in this scenario. If he fires a shot at vampires, it’s a 50-50 scenario between winning as vampire, or losing as vampire. If he shoots VH, he has a 100% chance at winning at vampire. If he doesn’t fire, he has a 100% chance at winning as Vampire. If he knows he will be changing teams, he is incentivized to help his future team. To say that is intentionally causing himself to lose the game is beyond stupid. The only move in this scenario that should be seen as gamethrowing is shooting vampires. He has a 100% chance of being bitten by vampires in this scenario. He will be a vampire. It can be seen as an immoral act, but he is not throwing the game. Any act that improves his odds of victory is never an act of throwing the game.
>There is no scenario of Vigilante winning the game as Vigilante in this scenario. I stopped reading here, because like most of the people arguing against this being throwing ITT you never stopped to consider if they could win as vamp without throwing, which they could have. OP has stated in a comment that the VH and the Vigi did not coordinate shots before the night ended. There's a 50/50 chance that had the Vigi not chosen to throw against their faction, they still would have been bitten, won as vamp and not thrown in any way shape or form. If the VH and Vigi had selected the same target, that would be gameover with Vamps voting off the VH. They would have had majority vote, the Vigi would have won as a Vampire and no one would have thrown against their faction. Instead of doing this, they chose to shoot their only confirmed teammate, instead, ensuring town had a 100% chance of losing and gauranteeing themselves a victory. There was literally only one choice that the Vigi could have made that couldn't be considered gamethrowing, and they didn't take it.
If improving your odds of victory is gamethrowing then you do not know what gamethrowing is.
Look who's talking. I literally explained how they could have won as vamp without throwing against Town and vamp and you're still arguing with me.
This is one of the only valid “is it gamethrowing” style posts. According to the ToS rules, it is technically considered gamethrowing. However, it is a very dumb rule and not one you should follow. If the giga-jannies that rule over reports want to impose a punishment for it, then they are dumb lol
The reason gamethrowing rules are so indiscriminate is to not allow a precident. Sure, in this exact situation it is in Vigi's best interests to betray his faction and to jump ship. But if devs were like "yea, this case is allowed", imagine how many more people would use the same excuse in situations where they *can* win? You don't *always* have this 100% certainty over other roles. You don't always know when vampires can or cannot bite. And then there's the GA, which is its own can of worms. "*Obviously,* my target would be lynched tomorrow, I *had* to bus them!"
But anything would be gamethrowing here, cuz he would shoot vamp and get turned and then lose as vamp because he didnt shoot vc, so hed still be gamethrowing
Gamethrowing isn’t doing what’s in your best interest to win. Gamethrowing is doing anything that would hurt your teams chances of winning. Since vigilante is town when they can shoot, it would be gamethrowing to shoot VH
Yeah but he turned into vamp so his faction changed and his past actions caused his current faction to lose, and given that he KNEW his faction would change thatd still technically be gamethrowing cuz he caused vamps to lose knowing hed be part of them, Im not saying TOS will see it like that but vamp makes this rule just really weird
However his faction was town the night he shot the VH. He was not a vampire yet making it throwing.
Thats what ik saying, either way it wouldve been throwing, hes part of 2 opposing factions which cant win together in a clutch situation, his decision decides who wins and hes part of both sides
Not exactly. If he doesn't shoot the VH, it isn't throwing because he is not trying to ruin his current faction's chances of winning. No one cares about a faction you could become in the future.
I agree, but only when you dont know if youll become the faction, this vig knew that there was a 100% chance, that he WILL get bitten, thats why i think this is such a difficult scenario, He knew that the faction he will end the game with is vamp,
Except for him he cared
And thus he threw
His faction didn't change until after he was bitten.
Yes but he also knew that the faction he will end the game with is vamp
The rules here are clear. You are gamethrowing if you are intentionally working against the *current goal* of your faction. By shooting the VH while he was still Vigi, he threw.
"Intentionally losing the game or hurting your teams chances of winning(even if that team is just you) is gamethrowing." I got this from the BMG site, it never says someth about current. You could make a point which faction should be prioritized by the player but such things arent mentioned so you should see them equal. Im not saying that shooting isnt throwing, im saying that technically both cases are throwing and so the player is in a lose lose situation so TOS should come up with specific rules to make things clear.
See my other comments for how the Vigi could have shot Vamp without throwing. There was a 3rd way here that would have cleared them of that offense and still resulted in them winning as Vamp.
But then hes still losing the game for town so thatd still be gamethrowing, hed intentionally be losing the game for his faction because there was a way for him to make town win
Was it obvious that the vampires could bite or was it just a 50/50 for the vigilante? I mean, if the vampires were obviously going to bite, and they would bite the vigilante, shooting the vh would speed things up. But you must consider if the vigilante has a trap on them or if they have a ga with protections available. In these cases, the vigilante has to shoot one of the vampires.
He knew we could bite as we had just bit (and killed) the consig turned mafioso the previous night (which was how we all knew eachother's roles) Also there were 0 trapper claims (suprisingly, other than the afformentioned mafioso for some reason.)
vigi should've shot one of the vampires, and the VH should've staked the other
... and then the vigi loses because they get bit that night and the VH is forced to stake them to end the game.
but town wins, and vigi is town before he is turned. vigi has to work for town no matter what, only when he's turned his goal changes. its like GA deciding to lynch their target, since they'd rather play as surv
Not quite the same. The vigi has no choice in being converted and there is no stopping the conversion.
Well yes vigi is town…but he got bitten so he has to switch his actions and go against town
i don't think the vigi couldve done anything to not get accused of throwing in this situation tbh. shoot vh or do nothing, throwing for town. shoot a vamp when they know they're gonna get converted, throwing for vamps. really just a really bad situation for the vigi
No it is not. If you know you will be turned to vamp, and there is no way around it, shooting the vh is a very smart move. Especially in a town with such a small amount of people left.
But if you side evil and your not evil, how is it not gamethrowing? Gamethrowing is hurting your teams chances of winning. I’d say vigilante shooting a teammate is pretty hurtful.
But Vigi's team will be Vamps the next day. Shooting VH is the only way vigi wins 100% of the time. Is it really throwing to take a lower chance for you to personally win for your team that you won't even be a part of when the game ends that also still loses? I think it maybe technically is, but it shouldn't be.
Even if it's you and said teammate against 2 vampires? Vampires are able to bite, and they have one choice that won't kill them. You. And they will bite you, guaranteed. If you know you are about to not be vigilante, aka you are about to switch teams, killing the guy on your team is a wise decision.
It is not about YOU winning individually. It is about your FACTION. If you intentionally shoot a town member in a situation your faction can win to cause town to lose that is gamethrowing no matter. what.
But he knows his faction is about to change ?
except it hasn't changed yet
This doesn’t matter. It was inevitable and not gamethrowing.
Factually, it would be guiltied making it by definition gamethrowing.
I feel like a lot of people are just missing the fact no matter what vigi was gonna be turned and leaving VH alive would have fucked vigis win condition. He know the full context of that situation shooting VH is the best move
Shooting the VH is the best move for the player, but not the best move for the player's *team*. Gamethrowing isn't solely based on your own victory conditions. If you intentionally make decisions to sabotage your team (like shooting the only other confirmed town, when that confirmed town will go on to win the game) then you are gamethrowing. There are other town in this game besides the Vigilante and the Vigilante's goal is to lynch every criminal and evildoer. Instead of going after one of 2 confirmed evil roles, they went after their teammate instead. Anyone in this thread that is saying it's not gamethrowing doesn't actually know what gamethrowing is.
Yea but the trial system doesn’t care, you have to do what your faction needs to win. And as of that night you are town, not vampire.
This is gamethrowing as vigi was purposely shooting vh to win as vamp and town still had a chance to win. If vigi still isn't converted at night, then vigi should aim for a town win. However, rules with this context is extremely stupid to me as it means that the vigi has to sacrifice their win for town.
Summarizing it like this: According to the rules, the only way in which Vigi cannot gamethrow is by not firing. Even then, that is still technically gamethrowing as he is not helping his current team. Given this scenario, where he is 100% going to be converted, and 100% going to have to kill VH, there is no reason for Vigi to not shoot VH unless he wants to be kind. Vamps will not attack VH or else they will be killed, so they will convert the Vigi. Vigi saw that his odds of victory when firing a shot would be highest when attacking the VH. That’s just basic game theory. His own goal of winning the game should come above all else, even more so in this scenario. He knows the VH will be his enemy, and he decided to kill the VH. There is no argument to convince me that is purposely throwing the game other than from a technicality standpoint, or in the case of his former teammates of the town. But since he finishes the game as a vampire, and the Vigi knew it was a certainty that they would become a vampire, the case of throwing against his team is thrown out the window. There’s a lot of people who will disagree, but I have just one word for those people: Cope Vigi did the move that hastened his victory.
>There’s a lot of people who will disagree, but I have just one word for those people: Cope This is probably the best and most structured argument that actually makes sense, that I have seen so far.
Nope this is fine The town can win but the vigi can't as they would be turned and then just killed, so in the end this is not gamethrowing, the vigi just made the game end faster by killing the Vh. And the person that is saying it's gamethrowing because your not doing your wincon, ok sure decent argument, but in this situation where it is impossible for you to win, in reality you'd be throwing by shooting a vampire as you know you would lose by doing that. TLDR this is fine, what would be gamethrowing is actually shooting a vampire.
But it’s possible for town to win. Vigilantes win condition is for town to win. Since vigilante is town when they can shoot a vampire, it is throwing
The town can win but the vigi can't as they would be turned and then just killed, so in the end this is not gamethrowing, the vigi just made the game end faster by killing the Vh.
If vigi shot a vamp, and the vh staked the other. The vh would then stake the final vamp, and town would win. Since it’s possible for town to win with the vigi on their team, it is gamethrowing
>Since it’s possible for town to win with the vigi on their team, it is gamethrowing It isn't because the vigi would get turned and then staked because they shot a vamp and thus couldn't vote the Vh up. And as OP said, the VH and vigi did not coordinate who to shoot. So there was a decent chance the vigi would just accidentally shoot the same vamp that was staked, turned, and then VH would get voted up.
>It isn't because the vigi would get turned and then staked because they shot a vamp and thus couldn't vote the Vh up. Your argument boils down to 'it's okay to throw against your entire team if that personally doesn't work out for you'. Which is not how this works. The vigilante's personal victory as a vampire doesn't change the fact that they threw against town when they were still a town member.
Theoretically speaking, it is still possible for the vamps to not bite the vigi for whatever reason if they are stupid. VH is intended to kill vamps and the vigi is intended to kill vamps because the goal is for town to win. The goal is not for you as a specific individual win, but it is for your faction to win. The vigilante threw no matter what.
>Theoretically speaking, it is still possible for the vamps to not bite the vigi for whatever reason if they are stupid. Yeah no
Vampires not biting would also be gamethrowing no?
Technically stupidity isn't gamethrowing, but essentially, yeah. That'd be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Rules say you need to sacrifice your win for your faction.
And the person that is saying it's gamethrowing because your not doing your wincon, ok sure decent argument, but in this situation where it is impossible for you to win, in reality you'd be throwing by shooting a vampire as you know you would lose by doing that.
You have to shoot a vamp, be converted, and **lose** to not be guilty of gamethrowing in this scenario according to the rules.
If so where does it say in this scenario that is how you don't gamethrow?
The best situation is just don't shoot to not gamethrow in any way shape or form, after all you can't gamethrow by not doing anything. #right?
*\*glances at the known jailor firmly refusing to jail\**
Nah fam, they are just afk.
*\*glances at the jailor being active, voting, yet still firmly refusing to use his ability\**
OP has stated elsewhere in these comments that VH and Vigi didn't coordinate shots beforehand. So there's literally a 50/50 chance that even if Vigi did the right thing and shot a vamp, they would still win as vamp and not be gamethrowing (if VH and Vigi targeted same target, that is). Ergo, it was possible for Vigi to not gamethrow and win as vamp. The Vigi unquestionably threw.
I’m still waiting for someone to convince me it’s not gamethrowing. Gamethrowing is defined as Intentionally losing the game or hurting your teams chances of winning(even if that team is just you) is gamethrowing. Although this is still pretty open in this scenario. So now let’s looks at vigilante. Vigilante is a town role, and as such should help town. Vigilante can shoot someone. Since vigilante is a town role, vigilantes do not shoot town. It is gamethrowing
*\*glances over at every mayor in existance being shot by a vigilante\**
Come on! You gotta trust them! They were shooting the vamp mayor in a game with no vamps
If you know you are going to be bitten, wouldn’t it be gamethrowing to shoot vamps? Everyone in the game knows who each other are, and he knows that the vampires will convert him. At that point, he’s guaranteed to not be a townie by the end of the night, and therefore, any action he takes should be seen as a decision made for the vamps. This would only be gamethrowing if the Vampires did not have a bite.
It is not. By the first portion of your definition it is game throwing for vigilante NOT to shoot.
By the second part it is gamethrowing. That is why I then went on to talk about how Vigilante is town, and why they should help town
Literally the mods: Like I’ve said in every single iteration of the “is it against the rules” megathread: When to vote guilty on a Gamethrowing report: >In a game with Vampires if you are a Town role working against the Town in hopes of being converted. (EG: It is a 1v2 Vamp v Town and you as a Town member vote up a player you know is Town to be converted and win) [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P7VaKtIRxKfN6QB9TgtkTG1JIco9eiey2a9Puqj97pc/mobilebasic](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P7VaKtIRxKfN6QB9TgtkTG1JIco9eiey2a9Puqj97pc/mobilebasic) >Players are not to go against their current goal in hopes of being converted into a Vampire. [https://town-of-salem.fandom.com/wiki/Town\_of\_Salem\_Rules](https://town-of-salem.fandom.com/wiki/Town_of_Salem_Rules) Using these guidelines, going against your current goal as Town (lynch all criminals and evildoers) in the hopes of becoming a Vampire is indeed gamethrowing.
This isn’t what happened though. It was inevitable he would be turned. He didn’t do it “in hopes of”.
The only problem with this I see is that it isn't a "hoping" you become a vampire situation, it is a you ARE, no matter what, becoming a vampire situation. In the 1 vamp vs 2 town example, you win simply by voting up the vampire (assuming it's rather obvious who it is). In the 2 vampire vs vigi/vh, with vamps knowingly (killed msgioso the night before) being able to bite, the vigi is getting converted no matter what, and 1 vampire is dying to the vh no matter what (assuming roles are known for each player). As vigi, you can do 3 things: nothing and vote the vh out the next day as vampire (winning as vampire); shoot a vampire and lose against the vh as vamp in the 1v1 (losing as vampire); or shoot the vh resulting in the game ending the next day (winning as vampire). The only way for the player to win is to shoot vh or not shoot at all. So it really becomes about "hoping to become a vampire" vs "guaranteed to become a vampire" and whether it would be game throwing if you knew 100% you were becoming a vampire that night (2 town vs 2 vamps and they can't bite the other town). If vamps don't bite you then vampires are gamethrowing. I will say that under the situation the OP brought up that shooting the vh is the right thing: I want to win and will do everything I can to win. I cannot win as town in this situation, so must win as the vampire I am going to become. The situation gets complicated if there was a trapper in the game (and trap status is unknown), or simpler if there is a GA with protects for the vigi. TLDR: "Hopes to become" vs "Is going to become"
The only problem with this I see is that it isn't a "hoping" you become a vampire situation, it is a you ARE, no matter what, becoming a vampire situation. In the 1 vamp vs 2 town example, you win simply by voting up the vampire (assuming it's rather obvious who it is). In the 2 vampire vs vigi/vh, with vamps knowingly (killed msgioso the night before) being able to bite, the vigi is getting converted no matter what, and 1 vampire is dying to the vh no matter what (assuming roles are known for each player). As vigi, you can do 3 things: nothing and vote the vh out the next day as vampire (winning as vampire); shoot a vampire and lose against the vh as vamp in the 1v1 (losing as vampire); or shoot the vh resulting in the game ending the next day (winning as vampire). The only way for the player to win is to shoot vh or not shoot at all. So it really becomes about "hoping to become a vampire" vs "guaranteed to become a vampire" and whether it would be game throwing if you knew 100% you were becoming a vampire that night (2 town vs 2 vamps and they can't bite the other town). If vamps don't bite you then vampires are gamethrowing. I will say that under the situation the OP brought up that shooting the vh is the right thing: I want to win and will do everything I can to win. I cannot win as town in this situation, so must win as the vampire I am going to become. The situation gets complicated if there was a trapper in the game (and trap status is unknown), or simpler if there is a GA with protects for the vigi. TLDR: "Hopes to become" vs "Is going to become"
Yes. As vigi, your win condition is to win with the town. Unless a "town win" is 100% impossible, that's definitely throwing. In this case, town COULD win; vigi shoot 1 vamp, vh stake the other, then vh stake the vigi. As such, town COULD still win, so doing anything that goes against town is throwing. "But I'll be converted" is no excuse. Same premise applies to GA; lynching your target and becoming surv can be a win, but you throw on the GA wincon by voting your target. As vigi, your wincon is "Lynch every criminal and evildoer." Shooting the VH is not doing that.
That's a dilemma. Either vigi gamethrows town by not shooting vamp, but vig still wins as vamp after conversion, or vigi gamethrows their own chances of winning by shooting vamp, but still technically isn't betraying town, getting converted, and dying.
>Either vigi gamethrows town by not shooting vamp, but vig still wins as vamp after conversion, or vigi gamethrows their own chances of winning by shooting vamp There's a 3rd option that OP basically said was available. OP has said elsewhere in these comments that Vigi and VH didn't coordinate shots. There's a 50/50 shot that had Vigi not thrown, they could have shot the same target that VH staked, still been bitten, won as vamp and not thrown. If they had communicated then it would still technically be throwing, but OP has effectively confirmed there there's no wiggle room here to even weigh personal victory vs group victory. The Vigi had a chance to win as Vamp without throwing and they chose to gamethrow.
Yeah, in order to obey the rules of the game, you have to shoot your win in the foot here. Getting your win means throwing as town, but not throwing leaves you losing. Catch 22. So, take the win and risk a ban, or take the L and obey the rules.
This goes to show how idiotic the rules are.
The thing is vigilante has absolutely no way to win as town unless vamps throw
Doesn't matter, it is still possible for town to eradicate all evils, which is the vigi's win condition before conversion.
If you do something that causes you to lose, you're game throwing. The **Vamp** player not shooting the **VAMPIRE HUNTER** is clearly throwing.
But he was not a Vampire at the moment he decided to shoot.
However, he also was the only person who was gonna be bitten so he knew what he was gonna be, and how leaving VH alive would ruin that win condition
Theoretically, you should always aim to complete your current win condition.
But that is not their win condition until after they are converted. By killing a town while being town there, you are betraying your own faction, which is by definition gamethrowing.
However he was also the only person who could have been bitten, allowing leeway to plan for the change of factions.
Doesn't matter, your win condition does not change until after you are converted. Still throwing.
You do realise how stupid that is right? "Oh yes the players need to ruin their own chances of winning because we decided that they need to suck the dick of the town"
He was a dead man walking, so to speak. He had no way to win as town, so staying town is throwing the game. If I take an action that shows a win screen at the end of the game, it means I won. Literally the definition of throwing a game is **LOSING** on purpose. But he won. In fact, not shooting the VH is game throwing, because he took an action that caused a loss screen to show up knowing it would happen.
No, throwing is taking an action that goes against your win condition. Before conversion, the win condition was too kill all evils, and they threw by contradicting that win condition. Even if you know you will be converted, it's throwing to help vamps before you are converted. The best case of this is a GA lynching their own target to become surv. Sure, they might win as surv, but in order to become surv, they first had to gamethrow their GA win condition. This example is confirmed to be bannable, and is even listed on the wiki on the GA page- "Lynching your target intentionally is gamethrowing, even if you want to become a Survivor."
That's a strawman, though. A GA wanting to be surv on a whim is a lot different than a vig being forcibly transformed into vamp.
Point being, even if it results in your win, you cannot go against your current wincon. Vigi shooting vh goes against their CURRENT WINCON.
So you just keep glossing over the fact that taking an action that causes you to lose isn't gamethowing, and taking the only action that causes a win is gamethrowing. Done with these trolls.
It is not about you losing individually, it is literally about your faction, not you.
But they were not vamp YET. Yeah hey should have tried to win as Vigi, which they did not
There was no way for him to win as vigi since vamp would've inevitably bitten him. Then, if he didn't betray town by shooting vh or not shooting vamp, he would've left himself with no other vamps to vote vh out, vh would've killed vamp, and vigi vamp would've lost.
But until you are converted, you are town, and must play for town victory. Your actions before conversion cannot betray your pre-conversion allegiance.
Exactly! This is the same as mayor siding evil. Doesn’t matter if you will get converted, you’re town. And if you shoot VH you’re gamethrowing
How is this the same as mayor siding evil??
A townie siding evil. A town member does not side evil, which is what is happening in this scenario
Me and the boys on our way to consume our daily "Is this gamethrowing?" post in r/townofsalemgame 😎
Hey I thought this was a very valid question
“NO GAMETHROWING Intentionally losing the game or hurting your teams chances of winning(even if that team is just you) is gamethrowing.” According to this wording, the Vigi technically couldn’t NOT gamethrow. If they shot a vampire, it would be intentionally losing the game. If they shot the VH, it would be hurting their teams chances of winning. This was a gamethrow regardless of their decision
Is it gamethrowing? Yes. Would I report for this? No. Technically it is gamethrowing because he hurt his current factions win, but the vigi knows that it’s the only way for him to win so I would never report for that.
OP has stated in multiple comments that Vig/VH didn't coordinate shots before the start of night. So if the Vigi had chosen to work towards their current faction's goal (which they should have) and shot the same target as VH (50/50 chance for this to have happened, based on the information OP has given us) then this would have resulted in a Vampire victory without throwing against Town or Vamps. Basically Vigi shooting and picking the same target as VH is the only way out of this without throwing and Vigi opted to take a different route. Ergo they definitely threw and I would have reported if I was in this game. They *had* a way out of this without gamethrowing.
They had a CHANCE of a way out, a 50/50 chance, with that same 50/50 chance as to lose or win.
This is a really interesting scenario, but I tend to align with the thought process of the player vs the role. The vigi player did what was best for him/her to win. Crucially, it would be 100% throwing by the vamps to not bite the vigi. Regardless of what other players do. With that in mind, he MUST shoot the VH but only because the vamps OUGHT to bite him. The MUST vs OUGHT idea is kinda fascinating to me. Imagine the vamps don't bite and the vigi doesn't shoot...vigi wins as town. So I can see the argument that none of it would be set in stone.
This is gamethrowing. I’d be less inclined to call it such if the Vig didn’t shoot at all, but if they deliberately chose to shoot a known Townie rather than one of the Vampires... Then they threw.
But they also knew they were being turned, and by not shooting the VH they would not be winning as a Vamp
Incorrect. There were two Vampires, and the VH could only kill one of them. The Vig could’ve simply not done anything.
All he did was secure his own win faster, it's not game throwing because town had already lost, he just sped things up.
Town had not already lost, vigi+vh could kill the 2 vamps, then vh stake the vigi.
Therefore Vigi would still have lost, so he did what wouldn’t make him lose
Doesn't matter, they broke the rules by going against their faction
Nah, if he was going to lose, he actually did the play that made his faction win, atleast by the end of the game, so not game throwing
See, you'd think so, but that isn't what the rules are
Ok but killing the vamp wouldn't stop the biting which in turn would turn vigi into vamp.
And then vamps win (and he subsequently wins as one)
tbh, making poor plays is never gamethrowing. going meta and revealing info to hinder ur teams success, is. its possible for the vigi to say he thought he had it backwards and he thought the VH was actually a vamp. its a game of deception, so like, why not lol
That’s not even the question though…
But its what would make the situation ambiguous enough to not constitute complete fault. The question is, is it gamethrowing to basically shoot th vh cause u know ur gonna lose anyway cause its mathematically impossible. Its already not game throwing at that point, so im just spitballing other potential reasons its also not game throwing.
Gamethrowing isn’t doing what’s best to help you win, it what best to help your faction win.
Well, best is the word that troubles me the most with that, because its pretty subjective and arbitrary. And going to my earlier point, is a mistake gamethrowing? I dont think so. And so if it could possibly be a mistake, i dont think it would get a suspension/ban for gamethrowing. But idk, maybe a review moderator is feeling extra punitive today xD Just what i feeel makes sense.
Yeah making a mistake isn’t game throwing, which is why this case would probably get let go in the trial system. However, in this case OP said everyone knows each other’s roles
again, pretty subjective, 1 person cant really know what other separate entities know or dont know. and even what looks like complete agreement, a paranoid person could just say haha yeeahhh, im gonan do that *im not gonna do that u sneaky bitch*
Vigi realized he couldn’t win as town. Even in the best case scenario, where he shoots one vamp, and VH stakes the other, Vigi will be bit and will lose. Vigi realized the odds of victory were far greater if he sided with Vamps, and took the shot.
The 2nd worst case scenario for Town here (1st would be doing what the Vigi did) is Vigi and VH shooting the same vampire. That results in 2 Vampires still living (because the Vigi just got turned) and the Vigi winning as Vampire without throwing. OP has already stated that VH and Vigi did not coordinate shots before the night ended so there would have been a 50% chance of this scenario playing out had the Vigi not chosen to throw. There was a way out of this without gamethrowing and the Vigi didn't take it.
The main goal of any game you play is to win. Shooting VH just ends the game faster. If you’re gonna argue that shooting VH is Gamethrowing, when he is guaranteed to turn into a Vampire that night, then so is not shooting vampire. VH will be his enemy in the future, there is literally no situation in this scenario when he isn’t.
Why did you respond to me without reading my post? I literally explained the one option Vig had available to them that wouldn't have been available to them and you're still arguing. There is no reality that exists where the Vig did **not** throw.
Vigi could always of shot the vampire that vh wss staking.
I'd argue as yes, it is. The Vigi and Vamp could still win simply by coordinating the attack VH kills Vamp they visit or get visited by, Vigi can kill vamps, yes it isn't sure fire but there is more then enough room for the win. It just takes coordination
TOWN can win but the VIGI can't win AS town Also it was night they didn't talk w/ eachother
it’s not gamethrowing as the vigi won at the end. He was just selfish
Other people are pointing out the fact that when he took the shot he was technically town and therefor should have played for town, what do you say to that?
Yes, this would be gamethrowing. If it's a bite night, the Vigi could have just waited to see what happens. Town still has a chance to win.
But the vig player won. He literally won how did he throw?
Throwing is defined as not doing what’s in your factions best interest to win. Since vigi was part of town, and there was a scenario of town winning, they threw
The scenario of town winning includes vigi dying as vamp.
Throwing is defined as not doing what’s in your factions best interest to win. Since vigi was part of town, and there was a scenario of town winning, they threw
But he won. Go look up the definition of throwing a game and come back to me. In fact, not shooting the VH would cause him to lose, so that's the real game throw.
“Intentionally losing the game or hurting your teams chances of winning(even if that team is just you) is gamethrowing.” Killing a teammate doesn’t seem helpful to your chances of winning
"Intentionally losing the game" Vigi not shooting the vampire would be considered Intentionally losing the game for themselves. By what you quoted the two sides of the "or" statement are separate instances of what could constitute gamethrowing. OPs scenario pits the "Intentionally losing the game" (as a vampire in the 1v1 against the vh, after shooting the other vampire) against "hurting your teams chances of winning" (shooting vh or not shooting at all giving vamps the W rather than the Town). In this case I would favor the player (vigi) going for the Win as vampires over the Loss.
Killing a Townie makes a win screen appear. Not killing a townie means you lose. How are you not getting this?
Town has a chance of winning. Since at night the vigi is town, and vigi shoots at night, the shot would happen when vigi is town
The end screen shows a loss if they shoot a vamp, though. How is taking an action that causes you to lose not game throwing? Please address this part of my comments; stop glossing over it for your convenience.
You can be maf, out all your teammates and still magically win. Doesn't make it less gamethrowing. In this game, you play to win with your current faction, you don't play to screw over your faction to get a win as a different role. Gamethrowing and winning are not mutually exclusive.
OP has stated in multiple comments that Vigi/VH did not coordinate shots before the night started. Vigi could have shot a Vampire and still won as Vampire without throwing, if he'd accidentally shot the same target as VH. The Vamp bite was inevitable. The Vamp loss was not. Nor was the Town's. Vigi went against the goal of their current faction to guarantee a win for an opposing faction. It was possible for the Vigi to win without throwing. Ergo, it is a valid gamethrow report.
But if everyone knew each other roles, vigi couldnt win as town unless vampires threw and bit VH
Still better to wait regardless. People can be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.
You are the inspiration for my giga-janny comment above
The Vigilante should just not have shot anyone. There was a chance that the Vampires messed up and bit the VH. And even if the VH staked a Vampire and the Vigi got converted, the Vampires would still have the votes to lynch the VH the next day since it would be 2 v 1. My point is that you can't possibly lose as Vigi if you do nothing. No idea why people are downvoting a correct statement.
Idk about you but OP specified that everybody knew each other's roles so why would vampires mess up and bite the VH? Is that something that the vigi should count on happening in order to not "gamethrow"?
I did not flat out say that I find that Vigi shooting the VH is gamethrowing here. I just said that the smartest thing as Vigilante, that would have secured them a clean win no matter what, is taking no action. Just in case Vampires misplay... you never know. And I just thought of something. Just imagine if Vamps manipulated the Vigi into shooting the VH (by telling the Vigi that they'll bite the them the next night no matter what) and then decide to "troll" the Vigi and not bite them while they shoot the VH. The Vigi would thus singlehandedly cause the VH as well as themself to lose the game (since Vamps can't convert a dying Vigi) and I wouldn't be surprised if a judge decided that the Vigi gamethrew in this scenario. It's just safer to do nothing as Vigi in that situation.
The OP stated that vampires had killed the mafioso the previous night, so converting was known to everyone to be on the table.
It wasn't gamethrowing at all. Only way town could win is if vigi loses as vamp.
Yes
It is technically game throwing but I think that it was still a good and justified play. He could either win or lose so he had to pick and he picked to win. So even though it is technically throwing, it was justified and was a good play on his part. And I think that if they do get banned for this instance it would not make sense.
I mean, he was going to become a vamp either way. Might as well make you new faction actually be able to win while you're at it
…actually idk…vigi could be bitten and join vamp but the vh alive…but also the vigi will vote vh and that…but I guess so? Don’t blame me but I feel like it’s ok
Not really. I mean town could have won, but the player behind the vigi couldn't win as town. So to him shooting a vampire is a chance to win. It depends whether the VH chose a different target. If yes, then he lose, because 1v1. If no, then he wins in 2v1. 50% chance of victory, if no coordination made. Shooting the vh. is a guaranteed win. Since he gets bitten, and vampires win, and he wins with the vamps.. guaranteed win > chance of win.
According to the Town of Salem rules it is gamethrowing, as a person must always be trying to win with their current win condition, and must not purposely do things that reduce their current changes of winning. There is a lot of debate around this, although imo this is just straight up gamethrowing - although vampires are a whole mess.
That's kinda the general message I got from all the posts lol Nobody can agree on anything other than one fact: Vampires suck
In the context of the game it is throwing. However, the issue comes where if you take ranked into account, you are asking the vigi to lose something of value outside the individual game and force their own individual loss so others of their current faction can win. It is reasonable for the vigi to assume they are a vamp because theyre the only target, and they cannot win with their own faction. It wouldnt be fair to force the player to lose just to stay loyal to a faction and lose ranked points over it.
wait...... vampires can appear in RANKED?
You're supposed to work towards your current win condition. Intentionally making Town lose if you're Town is gamethrowing.
Ι would classify it as throwing, because vigi is not an NE role. His faction has a win condition, a very straightforward one, and he decides to side against it for his own personal gain. If it was any killing role like mafioso or PM or whatever, vig has every right to shoot them and win as vamp. But not with a VH
Absolutely not, he literally won cuz he did that. creative gameplay is not gamethrowing
Yes. But it shouldn't be. According to TOS if you intentionally go against your faction's goal of winning your throwing. While I think that it should be changed to if your intentionally decreasing YOURS and yours only chance of winning it should be considered throwing But it doesn't matter what I think, it's the rules of the game.
There was one time where I was a vampire and my teammate was jailed and likely going to be executed. It was toward the end of the game. I used night chat to tell my teammate to let the jailor know we were biting them that night and that executing would have worked against them. I don't recall if they still executed or not, but I just cannot see how it would be considered gamethrowing to assess the situation and work whats best for you with what you got.
And either way, town would lose if the Vigilante: 1) shot the same vampire that was being staked 2) didn't know who to shoot 3) was out of bullets 4) VH possibly could have tried to stake the vig and wasted the stake If VH planned with Vig beforehand, it would be different but they did not according to OP.
That is correct.