؟ ([personal profile] dramatispersonae) wrote2012-12-31 05:50 pm

[*] Jasper

[ Your team is left alone - strange, how it didn't seem like you went anywhere, just everyone else disappeared.

A woman's voice - can be heard now ]

Ah . . . what I would give . . . no, what you will give? Your choices will determine that, so let us play a simple card game. But first, choose your stance.
thinkoutsidethebox: (m62)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] thinkoutsidethebox 2012-12-31 11:07 pm (UTC)(link)
Hardest to win, is it...?
mysong: (✕ eye)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] mysong 2012-12-31 11:08 pm (UTC)(link)
You want to be an advisor?
thinkoutsidethebox: (m15)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] thinkoutsidethebox 2012-12-31 11:12 pm (UTC)(link)
...It depends on what sort of difficulty it is. If it's truly intellectually challenging, as the name of the role suggests, it could be most interesting. If it's just defined that way to punish those people who will chose it to avoid the other two roles, that's less appealing.

Unfortunately I think the latter is more likely.
mysong: (✕ cling)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] mysong 2012-12-31 11:13 pm (UTC)(link)
So attacker would be the better role.
thinkoutsidethebox: (m56)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] thinkoutsidethebox 2012-12-31 11:13 pm (UTC)(link)
Are you alright with that...?
mysong: (✕ eye)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] mysong 2012-12-31 11:15 pm (UTC)(link)
...Better than being a martyr.
thinkoutsidethebox: (m12)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] thinkoutsidethebox 2012-12-31 11:17 pm (UTC)(link)
We'll go with that, then. For the choice of teams, I wonder if they'll give us information on their roles...? Perhaps Carnelian and Kunzite.
mysong: (✕ cling)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] mysong 2012-12-31 11:19 pm (UTC)(link)
Hmm...That sounds fine to me.
thinkoutsidethebox: (m6)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] thinkoutsidethebox 2012-12-31 11:20 pm (UTC)(link)
Good.
mysong: (✕ cling)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] mysong 2012-12-31 11:07 pm (UTC)(link)
...'Attacker' is the only good one.
thinkoutsidethebox: (m49)

Re: FINAL ANSWER

[personal profile] thinkoutsidethebox 2012-12-31 11:21 pm (UTC)(link)
We'll be an attacker.

And for teams, Carnelian and Kunzite.
mysong: (✕ cling)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] mysong 2013-01-01 12:29 am (UTC)(link)
So we'll be using them all...
thinkoutsidethebox: (m5)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] thinkoutsidethebox 2013-01-01 12:31 am (UTC)(link)
[examining the flavor text with a giggle before speaking]

...Well, let's see. If the advisers will be playing cards on us directly, I'm not sure it matters who we play ours on. The order might matter, however. I assume the adviser cards will only counteract the card played in the same sequence.
mysong: (✕ eye)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] mysong 2013-01-01 12:33 am (UTC)(link)
Right...They'd probably use reflect last, if they choose to be advisors to help.
thinkoutsidethebox: (m12)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] thinkoutsidethebox 2013-01-01 12:35 am (UTC)(link)
They would choose it last for preference, but we have to use all of them. That doesn't mean they would play it third. They might play Reflect first on the assumption attackers might play their cards in escalating order.
mysong: (✕ cling)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] mysong 2013-01-01 12:38 am (UTC)(link)
Hmm...That may be true too. Either way, it might be best to use our strongest in the middle, so they it's less likely to be reflected on us.
thinkoutsidethebox: (m10)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] thinkoutsidethebox 2013-01-01 12:41 am (UTC)(link)
Good. Let's do the minor attack first and the medium one last. Are you going to argue with me over which teams to target?
mysong: (✕ eye)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] mysong 2013-01-01 12:43 am (UTC)(link)
...Probably a little, depending who you pick.
thinkoutsidethebox: (m24)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] thinkoutsidethebox 2013-01-01 12:46 am (UTC)(link)
How about Ruby, Emerald, and Kunzite?
mysong: (✕ cling)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] mysong 2013-01-01 12:47 am (UTC)(link)
[thiiiinking]

...That's okay to me.
thinkoutsidethebox: (m52)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] thinkoutsidethebox 2013-01-01 12:49 am (UTC)(link)
In that order. So, minor on Ruby, major on Emerald, and medium on Kunzite.
mysong: (✕ slobber)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] mysong 2013-01-01 12:49 am (UTC)(link)
Sounds good to me.
thinkoutsidethebox: (m6)

Re: discussion

[personal profile] thinkoutsidethebox 2013-01-01 12:52 am (UTC)(link)
Simple enough.
thinkoutsidethebox: (m48)

Re: final answer

[personal profile] thinkoutsidethebox 2013-01-01 12:52 am (UTC)(link)
1: minor attack on Ruby
2: major attack on Emerald
3: medium attack on Kunzite