The four parts of a useful claim
A complete claim answers four questions: what role are you, what did you do each night, what feedback did you receive, and what public event supports or conflicts with that log? The order matters. Players should be able to compare your Night 2 target with a Lookout visit, a roleblock, a death or a transport without translating a long story.
Claim timing is part of the evidence
Claiming too late can look opportunistic because you had time to copy public information. Claiming too early can expose an important Town role before it produces value. The right timing depends on pressure: claim when withholding the role creates a realistic risk of miselimination or when the information can resolve a live contradiction.
Do not overclaim certainty
A Sheriff should say “Player 4 was innocent,” not “Player 4 is confirmed Town.” A Doctor should say whom they healed, not assume every quiet night was a successful save. Strong claims preserve the difference between game feedback and interpretation, which makes them easier to trust after new information arrives.
Counterclaims need role-list context
Two players claiming the same category are not automatically a 1-for-1. First check whether the mode allows both, whether a cleaned role leaves an open slot, and whether one claim has mechanical support. Counterclaims become powerful when the setup actually limits the number of legal stories.
Pressure test with specific questions
Instead of “prove your role,” ask for Night 1 target, exact result wording, why the target was chosen, and what changed after the result. Specific questions force a fabricated claim to maintain chronology. They also give real Town players a fair chance to explain odd but legitimate decisions.
Worked claim example
A Lookout claims N1: watched Player 3 and saw Players 5 and 8 visit. Ask Player 5 and Player 8 for their roles before telling them what answer you expect. If Player 5 claims Doctor on Player 3, the stories fit. If Player 8 claims a non-visiting role, that is a concrete contradiction worth resolving with Transporter or control claims.
A short defence that can be checked
Role: Doctor
N1: healed 3 — no attack message
N2: healed 8 — target attacked
Selected 8; no control message.
Question to resolve: was 8 transported?This example supplies an action history and one unresolved issue. It does not claim that the heal identified an attacker or proved the patient’s alignment. Replace the details with your actual feedback; adding a plausible message you never received makes a genuine role claim unreliable.
Common mistakes
- Posting a role name with no night log.
- Adding “confirmed” language that the ability did not actually prove.
- Changing targets after public information makes another story safer.
- Treating every counterclaim as mechanically exclusive without checking the setup.
