Calling upstanding neutrals 'scum' is completely unacceptable!
I don't see any more room for manipulation than a single lynch.

I actually asked about that during the game. My two wincons were completely separate, if I lynched Ixam then I didn't need to survive and if I survived then it didn't matter if I lynched Ixam or not.

Isn't there regarding separate double lynch wagons? I think there is, just a lot less which in turn requires more (coordinated) effort and timing, hence the increased chance of getting into trouble.


I wondered because of the leaving the town after avenging your little sister bit, but I just checked again, and it's just flavour and not part of the win-con.

I'm still not seeing it to be honest, can you elaborate?

Yeah, I was always going to leave the game if I achieved Ixam's lynch so it would have been functionally the same even if I'd been lynched at the same time as Ixam.

Going with your example, let's say that SPF+HSL had 2 votes, both players were non-scum, and EoD was approaching. Wouldn't it be possible for players, and scum in particular, voting elsewhere (either individual players or another double lynch wagon) to try and make this one the majority votes wagon?

I'm thinking that there's always room for manipulation when there's a double lynch on the table, just less when it can only be achieved by voting for a specific pair of players. Perhaps I'm wrong.


You'd always leave the game in either case, but would you be able to leave the town of Salem in the latter case? ;-)

That kind of manipulation can happen with any wagon though. I guess I see what you're saying though, the risk is higher. The possibility for manipulation is the same in both cases, it's just that a double lynch is inherently more dangerous.

You never know, they might have chucked my body in the river...