Did you even understand what you just said? The city was wasting its defenses on the already protected Gill for no reason. What a load of crap, luck!
Of course, it's stupid. Gill and I wore out our fingers analyzing possible actions and scenarios in ICQ. But if it makes you feel better, then of course, it was just luck, the coin landed that way.
I see that people who can't think through and calculate options naively believe that others are also deprived of this ability.
And you don't seem to care about getting killed, you practically killed yourself. If you didn't want to play, you shouldn't have signed up.
Calm down. We don't have that kind of relationship, so this attack can't be considered friendly.
I understand that some people just don't know how to lose (and also don't know how to play, but they don't see the connection between these two things), but why are you so upset? The train has left.
The fact that you didn't even figure out whether we executed based on the evidence or based on behavior is obvious – and that's the logical outcome, based on skill and the result.
Oh yes, you arrested Lizzie based on the evidence, well done guys!
I'm not "unable to lose"; we lost, yes, I don't argue. When we play Generals with Revan, for example, and after my victory, he writes "The Auroras decided, it's an overpowered faction," I don't argue because they really did decide, and it really is overpowered. But you have a very strange reaction; it seems like you don't know how to win.
I understand the criteria you used to execute; we knew the roles just as well as you did.
Except the ones we've made