Ah, I see. In my case a Mind Controller is a player who can target another player during the day and make them say and do actions according to PMs sent via the mod. That's what I think of when I see the term "Mind Controller."

Misdirection trumps tracking. Tracker obtains actual target (though misdirected) rather than player A's intended target.

What other definition is there, out of curiousity?

IT came up that I was a tracker, but we had a debate as to whether I was getting people's intended target (the name they sent in their pm) or their actual target in the case of misdirection. My argument was that if I follow someone at night and watch where they go, I see where their actually went, not where they thought about going earlier in the night. Althought any other logic escapes me (except int he case of telepathic trackers), apparently, not everyone does it the way I do.

I go with the actual target.

Same thing occurs when a Tracker Tracks a Roleblocked character: Result - Your target targeted no one (because they were too busy being unconcious or some such)

I would say that the tracker gets the misdirected result. That's part of the tracker's utility, while still adding to the confusion of the game.

As it turns out, my role was to find both their intended target and their actual one. This caused even more confusion because I wasn't aware of it.

I write the definitions for each power ewach time, and rule dependin on how I worded it.

I do this as well.

One game I made a decision to not write down the defs, just to see what kind of questions I would get for each power.

Ever since that game I've been sure to get my wording down the way I want it.

In that case, I go back to the "it depends" answer. Mod's discretion that you should get both the actual and the intended targets, as long as consistency is applied. (That is, that you get both targets every time rather than randomly choosing between intended or actual.)

Otherwise, I would rule it as "actual target" only - even if the tracker has been misdirected.

I wasn't upset with VB at all. It's his perogative to design the game as he sees fit. It was mroe the in thread discussion that had me wondering.

I highly recommend including "Player A", "PlayerB"... When discussing scenarios. Even a phrase like Actual Target can be a bit confusing.

That being said, my power interactions tend to hold true to how the Roles would act. If Professor X is my Control Misdirector, in my mind he can make his target take an action even if they are trying to sit at home and do nothing.

PGOs, I have kill everyone who approaches him, other than a RB'er (so no, IMO, no Mutually Assured Destruction)

RB trumps Misdirection. This goes doubly true for Control MD.

*

New scenario: Player A Bus Drives B and C. Player X Jailkeep+'s Player B. Who gets JK'd?

Only an issue if you use the whole Jailkeep=RB nexus thing. I prefer the jailkeep = doc + RB role. Less broken.

I have Misdirection typoe powers working before all others.

Player C gets Jailkept.

Neither of you will ever get rules arguments out of me as a player, so long as this is the case. That is a very good thing to do.

I do the same thing. I very rarely get questions on the traditional roles. It's actually quite nice. Especially when you just spent the last 30-45 minutes sending them all out.