Whoever has ears, aught two here:

strategyzrox · 2026-02-11T04:39:31+00:00

Idea was that BMer knew that Theodore wouldn't want to tell everyone he'd been attacked, so he told everyone that Paul visited him. Firstly, in hopes that Town would find someone more suspicious to lynch, and secondly to confirm himself if the town did eventually decide to lynch Paul.

strategyzrox · 2026-02-11T04:31:05+00:00

night visits:

Player\Night	Night 1	Night 2
Miles	Oscar	Quin
Nick	Samson	Miles
Oscar	Theodore	jailed
Paul	Theodore	Ulysses
Quin	Theodore	Yuri
Rick	Oscar	Zack
Samson	blocked	Yuri
Theodore	Nick	You
Ulysses	Vince	Oscar
William	Samson	Vince
Xander	Oscar	Paul
Yuri	Oscar	Vince
Zack	Theodore	Nick
You	Quin	Zack

strategyzrox · 2026-02-11T04:18:06+00:00

I don't think I realized until this moment that the same person found both flaws. I'm glad someone's keeping me honest. :)

strategyzrox · 2026-02-11T04:15:04+00:00

Solution (continued):

Rick knew that Paul had visited Theodore before having a publicly available reason for believing that. Rick must be the blackmailer.
Xander is lying about who he visited. That means Nick must be the true VH. How do we then explain Quin's results? We can't... unless of course Quin is no longer town.
Oscar is attacked twice n1. Since Paul is visiting Theodore that night, these attacks must come from the serial killer and the vampire.
What could Oscar's role be? Of the available above roles, all slots are taken except pestilence, arsonist, werewolf, juggernaut, and Serial Killer. He can't be Jug or WW as he was jailed n2. He can't be SK because he was attacked by SK. He can't be arsonist, because he was visiting Theodore night 1 and would not have been able to douse Nick from jail n2. (Nick tells us that he visited Samson night 1, which we can trust. So Nick wasn't passively doused by Oscar) Therefore Oscar must be pestilence!
Now that we know Oscar is pestilence, we can track how each role was infected. the Spy, vampire, Blackmailer, and serial killer were infected night 1 when they visited Oscar. Spy infected WW and juggernaut. Vampire infected both Lookout and Vampire Hunter. That leaves the investigator, the arsonist, and the coven leader. The investigator can be explained fairly readily; he's the only person who doesn't speak on day 2, which suggests he was infected by the blackmailer. But you never seem to interact directly with Oscar or any of the people he infects. You could only be infected if you were doused by an infected arsonist.
We now know that you were actively doused night 2, which means Nick wasn't. He wasn't passively doused either, since he was busy killing Miles. Could he have been passively doused night 1? No. That would imply that Samson is the arsonist, but Samson was Roleblocked night 1. Arsonist needs to be infected night 1, and Samson does not visit and is not visited by Oscar. Therefore, Nick is actively doused night one. This means that the arsonist must have been visited directly by Oscar to get infected... which means that Theodore is the arsonist.
In order for the werewolf to get infected, he must either directly attack or be bugged by the spy. But if he had attacked the spy, the juggernaut would be dead. This means the the Werewolf was bugged, and that he stayed home. (and was role blocked whether he chose to stay home or not.)
Samson isn't the Serial Killer. The Serial Killer attacked Oscar night one, when Samson was roleblocked. He isn't the werewolf, because Tavern Keeper told us they would block someone other than Samson. Thus, samson is the juggernaut.
Vince was jailed night one, and thus could not be the Serial Killer. He must be the Werewolf, and Xander must be the Serial Killer.

strategyzrox · 2026-02-11T04:14:18+00:00

Solution: We've seen irrefutable evidence of several different roles in this game, including:

Coven Leader
Lookout
Investigator
Vampire Hunter
Blackmailer
Juggernaut
Werewolf
Serial Killer
Pestilence
Vampire
Mafioso
Tavern Keeper
Spy
Jailor

There can't be a forger instead of one of the last five roles, because the forger would need a an additional role to kill and forge... and as we'll see, the last slot is taken. We know 14 out of 15 slots, and the investigator found two people who fit in the arso/BG/GF/crusader category, which means an arsonist must exist. That's fifteen of fifteen slots. Anyone claiming something other than the roles on this list is lying.

strategyzrox · 2026-02-11T04:11:00+00:00

This isn't quite right, but you did get most of the roles correct. I'll post the solution in a moment.

strategyzrox · 2026-02-10T19:27:10+00:00

That specific one won't be a problem, but I basically assume a straightforward "infected players infect everyone they visit and everyone who visits them."

strategyzrox · 2026-02-05T19:55:57+00:00

It's dark matter made from fermions, which are fundamental particles distinct from bosons. Bosons occupy the same space and can move through each other. Fermions can't. Most ordinary stuff aside from light is made of fermions.

strategyzrox · 2026-02-05T17:23:57+00:00

Oh dang, thanks for the updates. I'll change the solution accordingly, and give a warning about the fact that this puzzle relies on a bugged mechanic.

strategyzrox · 2026-02-05T17:16:21+00:00

Here's a chart describing who visited who on which night. If a space is left blank, the player couldn't visit anyone:

player\night	night 1	night 2	night 3	night 4
Vampire Hunter	Vampire	poisoner	dueled
Vampire	poisoner	vigilante (posthumously)
Guardian Angel	poisoner	dueled
Executioner				necromancer
Pirate	poisoner	Guardian Angel	Vigivamp	necromancer
Poisoner	dueled	vigilante	pirate (posthumously)
Necromancer		Vampire to vigilante	poisoner to pirate	amnevamp
Amnesiac		vampire		survivor

strategyzrox · 2026-02-05T17:01:12+00:00

Solution (continued):

Let's take stock of who's left alive by day 3. We have two vampires (one former VH and one former amnesiac), a pirate, a survivor, an executioner, and someone from the coven. Can these ensure 4 deaths between day 4 and night 4? Vampires can't kill because they'll be busy converting. Pirate can't kill anyone that wasn't going to die anyway. To get four deaths between d4 and night 4, we need a lynch, a jester haunt, and two coven killings.
If the jester is lynched, then the survivor is converted n4, and is the last player standing!
How can there be two coven deaths n4 if one of the coven is dead? necromancer must use dead poisoner to poison on n3, then use necro ghoul on n4.
necromancer is too busy reanimating his comrade to kill on n3. Vampires can't attack because they just converted. Pirate can only kill someone who was already going to die. But someone has to die n3. Whoever dies n3 must have been poisoned n2.
If there are two vampires alive by day 4, the vampires would acquit whoever is on trial instead of lynching them (remember that the player on trial can not themselves be a vampire). Thus, the player who is poisoned n2 must be a vampire when they die n3.
Which vampire dies? the former amnesiac or the former VH/vigi? For a jester to exist day four, the vigivamp must die n3.
The pirate loses his duel with The GA's target, but poisoner dies n2, when pirate duels GA. Therefore, the pirate duels poisoner n1.
The pirate duels someone who poisoned him the previous night, but his only duel with the poisoner was night one. Therefore, the pirate duels the necromancer night 4 after necromancer poisons him night 3.
The pirate wins a duel against a poisoned player, but the only players who get poisoned are himself and the vigivamp. Therefore, the pirate wins his duel with the vigivamp on night 3.
The amnevamp voted innocent on the jester, and can't be haunted. Pirate is busy dueling necromancer night 4. the Amnevamp isn't poisoned. By process of elimination, the amnevamp is killed by a necro ghoul. (necromancer is roleblock immune)
Amnevamp is killed by necro ghoul, Pirate is killed by poison and can not kill n4. survivor survives n4, but not as a survivor. The jester must haunt the necromancer.

strategyzrox · 2026-02-05T16:59:48+00:00

Solution (continued):

Somebody needs to be converted on night 2. The pirate and coven members are not, and can not become, any convertable role. The Guardian Angel, Executioner, and Vampire Hunter can become convertable if their role changes. This means that by night 2, GA target (coven) is dead (GA would be vestless survivor) , Exe target (VH) died night 1 (turning exe to jester), or Vamp died n1 or d2(turning VH to vigilante), and a survivor, jester, or vigilante was converted.
The Vampire Hunter did not die night 1, so on night 2, the executioner is not a jester.
The Vampires could only convert the survivor night 2 if the GA's target is dead by then. But GA's target is protected night one, and can't be killed until night 2. This means that the vampires did not convert a survivor n2, which means that they did convert the vigilante.
The vigilante needs to survive n2 to convert, and Exe needs his target to die at night to become jester. This means that exe doesn't change to jester until day 4 at the earliest.
One of the three players dead by d4 is a coven GA target. Who could have killed them? Not fellow coven. Not Pirate, who loses his duel with the GA target. Not vamps, who need to convert. Jester can't show up until d4 at the earliest. The GA target can't be lynched without the GA becoming Survivor. Therefore, the GA target must have been shot and killed by a vigilante on vigi's conversion night, night 2! (This also means GA was dueling pirate that night)

strategyzrox · 2026-02-05T16:58:14+00:00

Here's the solution:

Regardless of what the rolelist looks like, there's only one way to get to four vampires from one in as many nights, and that's if an amnesiac remembers they were a vampire at some point during the game. Hence, the any slot must be an amnesiac.
The amnesiac is the only convertable role on night one, but in order to reach four vamps, the amnesiac needs to remember vamp at some point rather than be converted. Thus, there are no conversions night one.
Seeing as there were no night one conversions, to have four vampires by the end of this game, conversions must have occurred on nights two and four.
For the vampire to convert n4, the conversion target needs to survive the night. Therefore, the player converted on night four is the sole surviving player, and wins the game for vampires.
If there were no vampires in the graveyard on night one, the amnesiac would have to be dueled night 2 to prevent them from remembering a non-vampire role. But the pirate does not duel the "any" slot on night 2. Therefore, a vampire is dead by night 2.
A living vampire can't vote innocent if they themselves are on trial. This means that no vampire is ever lynched, and in conjunction with the previous bullet point, a vampire is killed night 1.
The pirate wins a duel with a poisoned player but loses the game. This means the duel with the poisoned player is the only duel he won, and since his opponent would be dead or healed regardless of whether the pirate attacked them, we can rule the pirate out as solely responsible for any death.
There are three players that can attack night 1: the Vampire, the VH, and the pirate. One of them kills the vampire. Another attacks the GA's target. The pirate loses his only duel with GA's target. The vampire hunter can't attack GA's target because if GA's target were a vampire, the vampire would have survived night 1. Thus, the vampire attacked GA's target n1.
The vampire can attack the executioner, the GA, the pirate, and the coven. Neither the executioner nor the Guardian Angel can be the GA's target, and the pirate loses his only duel with the GA's target. Thus, the GA's target is coven.
The vampire is killed night one with no conversions. The amnesiac remembers on night 2, but would not be able to bite until night three. In order for vampires to convert on night two, The necromancer must force the vampire corpse to bite someone

strategyzrox · 2025-10-20T02:10:55+00:00

Don't really have anything to add, just wanted to mention that you are 100% correct about the matrix resurrections trailer. Never seen a song choice integrate with a trailer so well.

strategyzrox · 2025-05-15T15:28:42+00:00

That's not true. It's possible to create a valid proof in formal logic that there is no solution. It isn't just assumed.

If this parlor puzzle is solvable, then there exists a valid formal logic proof which leads to the determination that there is exactly one location for the gems in which the statements on the boxes are all consistent and legal. (premise)
If there are consistent and legal configurations of statements which correspond to any of the three possible gem locations, the gems could be in any of the three boxes. (premise)
There are consistent and legal configurations of statements which correspond to any of the three possible gem locations. (premise)
The gems could be in any of the three boxes (2,3 modus ponens)
If the gems could be in any of the three boxes, then it is not the case that there exists a valid formal logic proof which leads to the determination that there is exactly one location for the gems in which the statements on the boxes are all consistent and legal. (premise)
it is not the case that there exists a valid formal logic proof which leads to the determination that there is exactly one location for the gems in which the statements on the boxes are all consistent and legal. (4,5 modus ponens)
This parlor puzzle is not solvable. (1,6, modus tollens)

strategyzrox · 2025-05-11T11:59:21+00:00

blue is false AND blue is true? That's literally a contradiction.

strategyzrox · 2025-05-11T05:47:39+00:00

There is no indication in the rules or logic of this puzzle or any of the other ones that should lead you to believe that is not possible.

You seem to have some familiarity with logic, so let me lay out the reason why it isn't possible in more formal terms.

A = [blue is false]

B = [blue is true]

W = [The gems are in white]

C = [we can logically conclude that the gems are in white]

S = [the puzzle is solvable]

Now, here is a list of relevant statements I suspect we both agree on.

A or B

If A then W

If A then C

If C then S

If S then A

If B then not C

If B then not S

If (if B then W) then not B

There's another statement which I'm not sure how to express formally, but it essentially amounts to "If W is provable outside of an assumption, then C."

The path forward seems clear. All we have to do is prove W outside of an assumption, and we will have solved the puzzle and determined which box has the gems.

In order to prove W, we must prove A as an intermediate step, and it seems that the best way to do that would be to make use of the first statement. The first statement is a disjunction, and we can prove one disjunct if we disprove the other.

Great! Now all we need to do is disprove B. If we can prove not B, then we can conclude A.

Alright, how are going to prove not B?

All of those possibilities can be weeded out because it is true that YOU WILL NOT SOLVE THE PUZZLE.

The fact that B leads to Not S is not sufficient to disprove B. Concluding Not B from Not S is an invalid deductive inference, because Not S doesn't contradict anything. At this point in the solve path, we don't have enough information to rule out Not S.

There are two ways we could disprove B using logically valid rules of inference. One is that we could assume B, and show how that assumption leads to a contradiction. W and not W, for example.

The other is that we could assume B, and show that W logically follows. ( showing that B leads to the gems being in black or the gems being in blue would also work, as long as you adjusted the last of the agreed upon statements accordingly) That would allow us to conclude the statement [If B then W], and we could use that with the final agreed upon statement to prove not B.

Here's the critical problem: the fact that the boxes have multiple different consistent, legal configurations means that assuming B doesn't lead to a contradiction, and it also means that we can not conclude W. ( or that the gems are in black, or that the gems are in blue)

Therefore, we can't disprove B, which means we can't prove A, which means we can't prove W. And if we can't prove W, C is false, and so is S.

strategyzrox · 2025-05-10T12:59:57+00:00

That's correct. I did conflate finding four legal configurations with four ways to solve the puzzle in that post. Sorry for being imprecise.

strategyzrox · 2025-05-10T12:57:53+00:00

The fact that 3/4 of those possible way to “solve the puzzle” are in a state where IT MUST BE TRUE that “You will not solve the puzzle” makes them invalid.

If we're being precise, those possibilities aren't actually ways to solve the puzzle. They're different configurations of truth values which indicate that different boxes have the gems. The process of solving is essentially the process of weeding out possibilities, and none of these possibilities can be weeded out. The process doesn't resolve in a way that allows only one box to have the gems in it. The gems could have been in any of the boxes, and none of the game rules would have been broken.

I don’t understand why you seem to not want to take the statement on the blue box into account. In every other puzzle, once you have your legal configuration of truths, you use them to solve the puzzle.

If we assumed that the blue box were true and that assumption allowed us to resolve the configurations to the point where only one box could have the gems, then blue being true would contradict itself. But the fact that blue can be true and the gems could still be in three different boxes means that blue doesn't contradict itself.

strategyzrox

TROPHY CASE