Official Site | Discord | Steam | Twitter | Reddit | Twitch | FB | YouTube | Wikia

Gamethrowing Neutrals


Can we clarify in the rules that Neutrals must also try to win like any other faction? Too many Alchemists think they can sacrifice their own victory at whim to secure the win for someone else. This can and does ruin the game for players who work under the assumption that an Alchemist can be coerced by provable threats of death and defeat.

Then when you complain these Alchs are like “Im neut i cant gamethrow LUL i choose who wins” and a surprisingly large number of players agree with them.

UPDATE: just read updated rules:

No Gamethrowing. Going against your goal in any case will be considered gamethrowing. Neutrals cannot gamethrow.

OP caught this during a change discussion – this wasn’t necessarily the final change.
After discussion, we have decided not to change the rules, as the rules have always reflected our original intention: Alchemists choosing a side is not going against their own objective. If they want to choose and they still aim to win, that’s not going against their objective – just a perk of being neutral.


so apparently i can side BD as NK now … very disappointing but im going to try it out… really takes away a huge part of the competitive element out of the game since now you can have up to 4 trolls every match


I mean it’s hard to prove an alch was gamethrowing, since they are loyal to no one.


This thread is about the alchs who admit it


But how are they gamethrowing? Elaborate?


a real life example would be where unseen told alch to vote out good king or they would kill him that night since he admitted he didn’t have any stoneskin left. he refused and healed king that night so good king won and he got killed by unseen.

he admitted that he died in order to make sure BD won

that’s the essence of it, it was more complicated but i forgot the specifics


That’s not gamethrowing. Alch doesn’t have to side with the majority


yes it is gamethrowing, alch admitted he lost on purpose. most straightforward example of gamethrowing there is


Alch didn’t make himself lose, unseen killed him. It’s stupid sure - but what if good king had guarded him?


bro, alch admitted he lost on purpose, there’s nothing to discuss lol


Btw I’d like to correct you here, alchs are loyal to themselves, which means they can’t die on purpose


Alchemists are not capable of throwing by their design (solo play style and various strategies to survive). They are the wildcards. However imo NK can still “throw”.


Not true, the rules state going against your objective is gamethrowing. An Alch’s objective is survive so getting killed on purpose is gamethrowing. I guess the replies here are proving my point that we need this clarified in the rules lol


I’m going to have to take @Moleland 's side on this one.

Neutrals are… well, neutral! They are wildcards. Chaotic. They can go either way and choose any side they want for any reason. If they “throw”, they only threw their own game for themselves. If they promised you something and lied, they are allowed to do that. It’s a gamble whether or not to trust Neutrals.

Be nice to your neutrals for a better chance of them siding with you (not saying you weren’t, but a general tip)~ if people go #neoutsout and you survive as a neutral, do you want them to win? I’d go the opposite way out of spite as long as I’m a neutral and not breaking any rules.


I’m sure there are ways to throw as Alch but I think they’d all be hard af to prove

You can always argue that it was your strategy to survive and that’s a hard claim to defeat


I don’t think you understand what i’m saying. Your own rules state that going against your objective is considered gamethrowing. An alch deliberately getting himself killed is going against his only objective, which is surviving.

So I’d like a clear response to the question, if an alch admits to getting himself killed on purpose, is he admitting to gamethrowing?


I’m sure there are ways to throw as Alch but I think they’d all be hard af to prove

Of course, but as I pointed out, I’m talking about alchs who admit it point-blank without shame


I’d say that as long as there was some incentive to win (meaning survive) it wouldn’t be gamethrowing, like in this situation. HOWEVER I understand that this guy had the chance to win with Unseen but because the Alch was threatened, he decided to ruin your day by siding with BD King. It’s a thin line, but if you guys hadn’t threatened to kill the Alch, maybe he would’ve sided with you guys.
It’s like man’s inherent free will and how we all don’t like being forced to do something. Because he was forced to do it or be killed, the Alch chose to rebel at the cost of his own life. But if asked politely and given a choice, he would’ve listened. As an Alch I usually bomb people who give me death threats but ally with people who ask nicely, be it BD, Unseen, Cult, or the NK. It isn’t gamethrowing.

Moral of the story: be polite to your neighborhood alchemist.


you’re basically saying revenge gamethrowing is okay

i’m not sure how almost every response in this thread is not understanding the OP

either an alch getting himself killed on purpose is gamethrowing or it isn’t

why is this so hard to understand?


It’s because unlike other classes, an Alchemist doesn’t have teammates to work with. They are basically, a solo wildcard. Gamethrowing would be where your actions hinder the chance of your faction’s victory, which ruins the game. But as an Alchemist, you’re not obligated to help anyone win. It’s Neutral.


bro, suicide is against alch’s objective which is gamethrowing, the rules say it clearly going against your objective is gamethrowing