No. 157

>>156
That seems to be standard for all the bad ends. If Erika is shot at any point in time, she ends up outside.

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it's similar to the way in which all the other corpses disappear.

No. 158

I'm not way too sure of this, but the last part of the game doesn't feel too real. As in every other umineko gameboard.
I don't think we are watching the real ending, Erika should be dead in those endings.

No. 159

>>157
So does it always jump right to the point where Erika accuses Shannon after she is killed (at any point in the story) Or does it just say gameover or something?

No. 160

>>159
From what I can remember from Bern's streams, it always jumps to that point when you "die."

No. 161

>>160
I see, non the less it looks like at the time of Rosa's death we are forced to go to that point. (I waited over an hour in Kinzo's study before heading out.)

No. 162

So, who is the main suspect right now? Natsuhi?
Should we try to elaborate an answer to Kinjo?

No. 163

>>162
If we do guess Natsuhi, we will at least learn if character's could fake their death or not.

No. 164

>>163
We should use a "guess" at some point. I'm not the type to hurry and run into things, but it would make sense to use one as we can only discuss in circles for so long on the same information base.

No. 165

On one occasion, Kinjo said that the reason we have only three guesses is because of Van Dine's 8th; the crime must be solved strictly by naturalistic means. Upon further questioning, it looked like we may be allowed to use blue for non-crime things without using up a guess.

No. 166

>>164
Yeah, even getting a little more infomation would be helpful.

Well we should try to maximise our info we can get from the guess.

If we go with Natsuhi being the culprit. We could say she did the 1st twilight by faking her death. That way we can get a response and find out if it is possible for one of them to be faking.

For the second twilight, we could say she activated the trap by remote, that way we can learn if it is possible to activate by remote.

We should plan out a strategy and figure out what info would be most important to learn.

No. 167

>>166
Second twilight is just a "poison gas trap", it could be activated by a condition or by a certain time, it wouldn't need to be remoted activated.

Also an interesting thing is than the second, fourth and fifth twilight could not need for the culprit to be near, since even maria death could have been some kind of trap.

That's because even if only the culprit can murder, his/her traps can kiil even if he's death.

No. 168

Something just occurred to me. Can we get the definition of "culprit" here?

No. 169

>>167
At a certain time is unlikely, since it would have a chance at going off when no one is around even.

That is interesting, I never looked at Maria's death as a possible trap, since she was shot in the chest and Erika can't find a gun when searching the bathroom. That would mean that someone would have to have taken it away before Erika gets to search the bathroom. Isn't the only one who could have done that Rosa? Since she shooed everyone out of the bathroom.

Maybe Rosa is an acomplice. She was the person who used the secrect passage to throw the gun down to the culprit in the courtyard.

It is possible the culprit never even was inside the study when everyone barrcaided themselves up there.

No. 170

I never really thought about Maria's death as being caused by a trap since I found a secret passage behind the mirror in the bathroom.

No. 171

>>170
It said something like "small secret passage", not exactly sure if good enough to travel about it.
And Hideyoshi dead was indeed a trap, and no gun was found. (just device which made a clicking sound, which was probably a hidden gun-thing)

No. 172

>>171
I can't remember do we even hear a gunshot when dies?

No. 173

>>172
Yeah, she was shot in the stomach, did't she?

No. 174

>>168
As Van Dine said, there must only be one culprit. The culprit is allowed one accomplice. The entire onus must rest on one pair of shoulders: the entire indignation of the reader must be permitted to concentrate on a single black nature. Thus, only the culprit can kill, not the accomplice. The accomplice can assist the culprit in any way, except for committing the actual murders.

So, the culprit is the one who planned and committed the murders, and may or may not have had an accomplice. The accomplice willingly assisted this culprit, but did not actually commit murder.

Also, since things are getting slow, I'm setting a time limit of THREE DAYS FROM NOW.
Use your first try by then.

No. 175

>>174
Then Krauss isn't dead, is he now?

No. 176

>>175
What makes you say that?

No. 177

>>176
Shannon is the only one who could have shot Krauss. There is no evidence that anybody else could have done it, and as the rules state, the case cannot be resolved without clues that are not presented.

However, Dine's rules state that a servant cannot be the culprit, which means that Shannon is incapable of killing anyone during the course of the story.

Either Krauss isn't dead, or the rules don't work here.

No. 178

>>177
The rules work here.

No. 179

>>178
Then [color=blue]Krauss isn't dead.

Hey, come to think of it, isn't the culprit supposed to survive until the end of the story?

No. 180

>>178
Shannon cannot be the culprit and the scenes make you think she did it. So there are two simple options.
Meta scene or the culprit was still alive.

No. 181

>>179
That isn't in blue, so I don't need to respond.

But if you're so confident in that theory, write up a more detailed one covering the rest of the game instead. Using the shotgun method to quickly gain information won't work anymore. So go ahead and elaborate all you want. I'd certainly be interested in reading it.

No. 185

A time limit Kinjo; getting tried of us going around in circles discussing?

>>173
Yeah, but did we hear the gunshot? Maybe the 'gunshot' mention is a trick. Nothing in van dine states our detective has to get things right. (Right?)

No. 186

>>185
I THINK we heared it, but not sure

No. 187

>>181
I would, but I died before I could see the rest of the game. I was just throwing that out there.

No. 188

>>174
Cutthroat as ever, I see~

Alright, If we're forced to make an actual guess in the near future, one thing that I think might be a good idea would be for us to nominate a specific person to present whatever theory we end up settling on. Personally, I'd nominate miss ANGE for this, because she's not only one of our best detectives, but also because her status as an English major would assist us in evading any wording pitfalls Kinjo might try to take advantage of. Presenting our theory as clearly and with as much detail as possible will be paramount to success.

Now as for Krauss's death, personally, I think it's the trickiest part of the entire game, and I have a feeling we'll probably be needing any information we can grasp at after we use up our first guess to solve it. Putting aside his last words for a moment, I doubt the scene itself could be meta/fantasy, because if Erika is the detective, then what she saw had to be real as long as the clock had not yet struck midnight. As far as I know, that hadn't happened yet.

If we assume the scene did happen, it is still possible for Erika to be mistaken about whether or not Krauss was actually dead as far as I know. Even so however, the fact of the matter is that a gunshot still happened, and we need to find out who created it.

What i'm still incredibly curious about is whether or not VD12 means only the culprit is allowed to take another life under any circumstances. The reason I question this so heavily is because I recall from reading a certain murder posted on a certain forum gamemastered by a certain person in which the definition of murder is heavily dependent on whether or not the "killer" had the ill-intentioned, premeditated goal of killing the victim. Unless Van Dine rule #12 does not mean only the culprit is allowed to take another person's life under any circumstances, regardless of whether or not the actual killing is considered to be a "murder"(You can clarify at least this much in red, right Kinjo?~)then yes, nobody other than the culprit themselves could have killed him, if he did in fact die. If not, Sayo killing him to protect Erika should successfully circumvent VD12. And of course, if Krauss was actually still alive after he'd been shot as Astaroth suggested, Sayo could still be the shooter. She could have shot him in a non-lethal location purposefully, or he could also have just died after the game's end.

No. 189

Kinjo I would like two things clarifed if possible.

First of all, could an accomplice set up a trap or trigger it? This is tricky since, the culprit thought up the trap and created the idea how to use it, the accomplice was just set it up.

And second, does Nanjo go under the 'Servants can't be the culprit' rule.

I ask this because as I was rereading for notes, I noticed he wants money.

No. 190

>>188
Van Dine's 18th. A crime in a detective story must never turn out to be an accident or a suicide. If it's not murder, what else would it be?

>>189
An accomplice cannot set up or trigger any trap that would kill a person. This is because, if it was to murder, it would be killing a person, which only the culprit can do. If by some chance the accomplice triggered the trap by accident, or intentionally triggered it to commit suicide, that is ruled out by Van Dine's 18th.

There was a list of servants in the servant room. Was Nanjo on that list?

No. 191

>>190
Not a crime.

No. 192

Did anyone figure out when solving the epitaph should have come into play? I remember getting a gold bar, but I'm not sure if it actually changed anything.

No. 193

>>192
As far as i know of no.

No. 194

>>192
You can solve the epitath I didn't know that, and get gold.

No. 195

>>193

Hmm, that's odd. I doubt that somehow.

>>194

Yes. Erika solves the epitaph, briefly states how she doesn't care about money, but takes one of the ingots as "proof of victory." In my playthrough it is never heard of again.

WAIT.

When you get to the entrance of the room, there is a sign in red:

At the 10th twilight, the journey shall end and you shall reach the village of gold.

Or something to that effect, I can't be bothered to look up the exact wording. I just found it odd that it was in red.

No. 196

>>195
Equalizer what are your thoughts on the answer?

No. 197

>>190
>>191
I should note that, as I recall, by law "murder" requires premeditation. There are plenty of killings that are not accident or suicide that are not murder.

I remember in a certain comic someone got their crime downgraded from "murder" to "voluntary manslaughter" for killing a prison guard that was holding him under false pretenses...

No. 198

Something bothers me... Kinjo has Knox and Dine in red, but how true is that for everyone? Is it possible that in some playthroughs you wouldn't get enough evidence?

Request: No matter what moves you make, all of Knox and Dine still apply. Van Dine's 15th. The solution to the problem must be apparent, and this fact should be noticeable to the reader while reading the story for a second time.

No. 199

>>198
Van Dine's 1st. The reader must have equal opportunity with the detective. Van Dine's 6th. There must be a detective, and the detective must detect.

There are enough clues, the detective just needs to find them. That's equal opportunity.

No matter what moves you make, all of Knox and Dine still apply. Van Dine's 15th. The solution to the problem must be apparent, and this fact should be noticeable to the reader while reading the story for a second time.

No. 200

Another option when solving the epitaph is to go on an alternate path, which leads you to Kinzo's submarine. It has something written on the side: CA*A*LO*I*NCO. I tried to connect this to the "Praise my name" letter, but got no results. Any ideas?

No. 201

>>200
Equalizer, we are currently discussing a theory in another secrect thread, do you have a email or something. I'll give you the link.

No. 202

>>201

No. 203

Certainly.

[email protected]

No. 204

>>202
[email protected]

No. 205

>>202
What is your email Ozaki-sensei. I'll send you the link as well.

>>203
Sent it.

No. 206

>>204
No you're not. And I sent you the link as well.

No. 207

>>206
Hmm sorry could you try again? I didn't seem to get it. I'm sure that i didn't misspell my email. Maybe if i used your's?

No. 209

>>207
I sent another one. But it could be just that the email hasn't arrived yet. If it still doesn't arrive I have another idea.

No. 210

Check your spam folder.