[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Bernkastel promising not to use any "reader techniques" to distort the stage directions on her game board in EP8.

Yeah that's a good one. Actually, isn't it an outright confirmation?

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

But the purpose of red truths was to open the cat box not to coexist with other red truths. the red truth should represent the collapse of the wavefunction while the blue truth would represent one of its possible outcomes.

that's how it was described and that's the only way a red truth can have any point at all.

You can also see it such that Erika just misused Red to force an uncertain truth and died for it.

It would be kind of like in the game of Clue (hopefully you are familiar with it) where you proclaimed what you thought was the only possible solution and opened up the answer pack (hey, it's like a cat box!), only to somehow find yourself to be wrong, thus losing the game. The problem was that you made the proclamation too early: There were still two solutions; you just didn't realize it; you should have still been making non-proclamation guesses.

Originally Posted by Renall

Basically... what are you trying to drive at here, that Erika and Meta-Erika share no information? That's pretty much the only way to get out of this problem, and it would still mean Ryukishi basically cheated (just in a slightly different way, by allowing Meta-Erika to profit from Piece-Erika's information selectively when he felt like letting her and denying it to her otherwise, with no clear delineation as to when he's doing that).

To be honest I hadn't thought it out completely, but because of numerous reasons (such as those hints I listed earlier) I suspected that reader-perspective has something to do with the confusion surrounding the parlor scene. Your arguments have helped narrow down the most likely answer for me: Apparently it is that (at least in EP5) not all of Piece-Erika's observations are correctly transmitted to the reader (whomever it may be).

You can complain about the arbitrary nature of which of, and to what extent, Piece-Erika's observations were correctly transmitted to the reader, but I don't see it as a problem because it still has to remain within the range of possible reader interpretation of End.

Originally Posted by Renall

Your arguments about the cooperative nature are - and again no offense personally here, I just cannot agree in any way - utter hogwash. Umineko is in no way cooperative. We do not actually "interact" with Ryukishi, at least not as individual readers. Everything we read from him is filtered solely through his own perspective and we can only interpret and predict the end product. We don't have any opportunity to change it, which is part of what makes for a genuine exchange. He doesn't "get" anything from us, and we don't "contribute" anything to the main body of the work. How then are we helping him "create a world" as anything other than his stooge, constructing his false world on the backs of faulty perceptions he himself is responsible for creating? We may as well not even be in the equation if he's going to abuse us like that.

Not entirely true, because RK07 did pay attention to reader thoughts in between episodes and allowed those thoughts to have profound influence on his story (Land becoming Banquet being a prime example among many). I also think this was an intended function of Umineko from the beginning, and not just in an appease-the-fans kind of way (although I think fan-appeasing changes happened too, unfortunately).

In any case, I don't really care if you call the idea hogwash because it's not really mine. It's a matter of how I think RK07 sees it and not a sentiment I have any personal attachment to.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I interpreted Wanderer's argument slightly differently. If I understood correctly he says that since Erika believed there were 18 people in the room she saw 18 people and the red truth was consistent with her interpretation.

To further this kind of argument he listed the cases where the reader interpretation affects the gameboard.

Now if this is what Wanderer meant, there is a problem I see with it.

If the detective actively modified the gameboard then that should have become the truth in spite of what the Game Master actually wanted.

If it didn't work that way then Battler in EP6 could have told Erika: sorry bitch but you didn't kill anyone, it was just your imagination.

But he couldn't, because one basic rule of the Games in Umineko is that the player has a reliable perspective. If it didn't work that way it wouldn't even be a game.

Well, I've been trying to make a distinction between the reader's effect on the game board and the detective's. Let's put it this way: Piece-Erika doesn't have to be an unreliable observer in order for the information relayed through her to be misinterpreted by the reader.

• Piece-Erika has a reliable viewpoint.
• Writer says: "Erika sees everyone on the island in the parlor."
• Piece-Erika observes 17 people in the parlor.
• However, the reader thinks that everyone = 18 people.
• Meanwhile, Piece-Erika herself is unaware that the 17 people she observes is everyone. (Keep in mind that Erika was not present in the Meta-World when "In other words, the number of people in this parlor now is equal to the total number of people on this island." was proclaimed.)

We now have a situation where Piece-Erika's viewpoint is reliable, but the reader has an incorrect impression of what Piece-Erika viewed. The fault lies entirely with the reader and writer, and none at all with Piece-Erika. Now, if a writer (Lambda in this case) fools a reader like this on purpose, she's being a bitch and not really playing fair; but, let's not forget that EP5 was labeled as a game played "without love", so it's not unreasonable to think that that's precisely what happened; in other words, EP5 was an example of a game where the rules were technically obeyed but the spirit of the game was ignored.

Of note is that when it's Meta-Erika as the player in episode 6, not once does Piece-Erika see both Kanon and Shannon together. Aaaactually, in EP6 Piece-Erika never even sees Kanon at all.

So basically I'm saying that in the case of the EP5 parlor scene it's not the detective modifying the game board, but the player herself passively modifying it (or at least our perception of it) under the possible misdirection of the gamemaster. However, the detective's actions themselves still remain fully effective in shaping the game as always.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

I have a hard time reconciling this with the end of EP2 when Battler met Kinzo and Beatrice in Kinzo's study.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I have a hard time reconciling this with the end of EP2 when Battler met Kinzo and Beatrice in Kinzo's study.

Yes, me too until I noticed that when Battler went in Kinzo's study it was about to be midnight.
Thus, by the time he got in and saw Kinzo and Beato the island had likely gone KABOOM and that scene was a meta like his confrontation with Beato at the end of EP 4.
At least that's how I explain it to myself.
Another possibility is that Battler was drunk, fell asleep and dreamt it then the island went KABOOM and he never really woke up.

[Cao Ni Ma]

He also gave up and accepted the witch before that. For all we know meta-battler was turned into a pile of meat and his piece was just being moved around by Beatrice by then.

[Leafsnail]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Or Sakutarou was mass-produced afterwards by Witch-Hunters after the tragedy. After all, Beatrice is able to say that it was handmade by Rosa and stuff in Red.

Is there anything stopping Rosa from having repaired Sakutarou after ripping him in half? Like, she felt bad about what she did in a fit of rage (as usual) and tried to undo it, but realised that just fixing the doll wouldn't fix Sakutarou to Maria (perhaps she even asked for Yasu's help in this area or something, who couldn't manage it even with her influence over Maria).

Then again I can't remember how strongly it was hinted that the doll was mass produced in the original VN (which I guess makes Beatrice's red on the matter another silly one).

[AuraTwilight]

It was only ever even suggested that there might be more than one Sakutaro TWELVE YEARS after 1986. So for all we know, three years after the incident, the Witch-Hunters started producing Rokkenjima merchandise, including your very own Sakutaro doll for a complete Maria Ushiromiya cosplay!

Honestly, these guys write fanfics about real people that died. I wouldn't put anything past them. We don't have as strong a basis for Rosa taking a mass-produced toy and lying to Maria about it, though.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Of note is that when it's Meta-Erika as the player in episode 6, not once does Piece-Erika see both Kanon and Shannon together. Aaaactually, in EP6 Piece-Erika never even sees Kanon at all.

But Erika knows who Kanon is. If Piece-Erika doesn't, that means Meta-Erika has never been privy to the knowledge that Piece-Erika has never once met Kanon.

Or she does, and you're trying to tell me Erika would never consider this relevant up to and through the Logic Error. In which case, pull the other one.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

We now have a situation where Piece-Erika's viewpoint is reliable, but the reader has an incorrect impression of what Piece-Erika viewed. The fault lies entirely with the reader and writer, and none at all with Piece-Erika. Now, if a writer (Lambda in this case) fools a reader like this on purpose, she's being a bitch and not really playing fair;

Of note is that when it's Meta-Erika as the player in episode 6, not once does Piece-Erika see both Kanon and Shannon together. Aaaactually, in EP6 Piece-Erika never even sees Kanon at all.

I think that is exactly what happens and why it is important to distinguish between what happens within the forgery and what happens in the meta-discussion on the forgery. Yes, I am all for seperating gameboard Erika and meta-Erika...while they may appear to be one and the same more than other times (because she IS the detective) they are supposed to act on different grounds.

There is something in fiction that is pretty similar to that. Again it's Ayatsuji Yukito (well he basically is one of THE rolemodels for modern Japanese detective writers) with the 3rd novel in his Mansion-Series (written 1988).
It basically has a story-in-story format as well. The brother of the detective from novel 1 and 2 get's a novel titled Murder in the Labyrinth Masion (the same title as the book we are reading) in which authors invited to a labyrinth-like mansion are forced to write a murder story involving them as the first victims and they are killed in the same manner. Then he is invited to play two games with the author: (a) Find the true culprit before the book ends and (b) find out who the author of the novel is.
The solution is pretty similar to this one, as it turns out to be a description trick.
[spoiler=Murder in the Labyrinth Mansion]The decapitation of the first victim was guessed by the detective to have been used to hide the culprits blood. The idea of menstrual bleeding came up, but all women seemed to have alibis.
In the end they didn't because there was one character who was never gendered at all, but due to being grouped with certain people and acting in certain ways the reader is lead to believe that person is a man.[/quote]

In the novel within the novel we get a false solution in the end and so the detective arrives in an epilogue to clear it up to those who didn't get what actually just happened and fills in the blanks that were only hinted at (illegitimate child, inheritance, etc.).
The detective within the story (which is similar to Umineko's forgeries) never understands that truth, because in that fictional world the culprit misses the defining point that makes him spottable.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Yes, me too until I noticed that when Battler went in Kinzo's study it was about to be midnight.
Thus, by the time he got in and saw Kinzo and Beato the island had likely gone KABOOM and that scene was a meta like his confrontation with Beato at the end of EP 4.
At least that's how I explain it to myself.

Their meeting in EP4 was a whole 24 hours before the thing in EP2. It's not hard to imagine that Beatrice to be really Yasu in costume. She was far away from Battler and never used any magic. Plus Battler even refers back to the scene while he's investigating on Oct. 5th.

Originally Posted by Renall

But Erika knows who Kanon is. If Piece-Erika doesn't, that means Meta-Erika has never been privy to the knowledge that Piece-Erika has never once met Kanon.

Or she does, and you're trying to tell me Erika would never consider this relevant up to and through the Logic Error. In which case, pull the other one.

I only mentioned the part about how Erika never sees Kanon because it's interesting.

I'm not sure whether Meta-Erika remembers Piece-Erika's experiences in EP5. In any case, Meta-Erika knows about Kanon somehow or another and because of:

• [Request: 'Hideyoshi, George, Shannon, Kumasawa, and Nanjo are in the next room over!'] Acknowledged.
• I acknowledge that everyone else is in the cousins' room.

so she thought she had anyone on the island covered regardless of whether she met them or not.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I only mentioned the part about how Erika never sees Kanon because it's interesting.

It's more than interesting, it's kind of really important. If Piece-Erika has never seen Kanon and doesn't know there is such a person as "Kanon," then Erika basically has no access to her piece whatsoever, which means she's been lied to in the narrative (or just "conveniently" never been around when any important detail involving Kanon happens to come up, which is just bullshit).

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by Renall

It's more than interesting, it's kind of really important. If Piece-Erika has never seen Kanon and doesn't know there is such a person as "Kanon," then Erika basically has no access to her piece whatsoever, which means she's been lied to in the narrative (or just "conveniently" never been around when any important detail involving Kanon happens to come up, which is just bullshit).

Piece-Erika never sees Kanon in EP6 (at least in the explicit narrative), but she does talk about him, so presumably she was introduced to him or told about him at some point.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Piece-Erika never sees Kanon in EP6 (at least in the explicit narrative), but she does talk about him, so presumably she was introduced to him or told about him at some point.

If that were so, would Piece-Erika not want to make damn sure she knows where he is during the room separation?

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Renall

It's more than interesting, it's kind of really important. If Piece-Erika has never seen Kanon and doesn't know there is such a person as "Kanon," then Erika basically has no access to her piece whatsoever, which means she's been lied to in the narrative (or just "conveniently" never been around when any important detail involving Kanon happens to come up, which is just bullshit).

Are you saying that there is no way that Meta-Erika would be unable to influence Piece-Erika?

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Piece-Erika never sees Kanon in EP6 (at least in the explicit narrative), but she does talk about him, so presumably she was introduced to him or told about him at some point.

When exactly did Piece-Erika talk about Kanon?

EDIT: Found a spot where she did, when they were discussing splitting up the rooms.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Renall

If that were so, would Piece-Erika not want to make damn sure she knows where he is during the room separation?

I think it's pretty clear that Piece-Erika's actions are meta-oriented (even if she's not directly meta-aware). It's no more inexplicable than Piece-Erika's disinterest in corpses during EP5. Meta-Erika didn't think she needed Piece-Erika to verify Kanon's location, so Piece-Erika 'happened' not to; it's Bernkastel's probability manipulation bullshit.

Besides, it's impossible to solve the crime with 100% certainty on the Gameboard anyway due to a possible person X, whose existence is only denied in the Meta-World. In Gameboard terms, 5 witnesses in the room with Kanon should be good enough to verify his location. Natsuhi's Gameboard conviction from End worked much the same way (as opposed to her meta-conviction which had different criteria: Reds).

So yeah, neither Meta-Erika nor Piece-Erika absolutely needed to have Kanon's location personally verified.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

It would be kind of like in the game of Clue (hopefully you are familiar with it) where you proclaimed what you thought was the only possible solution and opened up the answer pack (hey, it's like a cat box!), only to somehow find yourself to be wrong, thus losing the game. The problem was that you made the proclamation too early: There were still two solutions; you just didn't realize it; you should have still been making non-proclamation guesses.

But that's not how the use of blue and red was explained. There are lenghty explanations about those and they are quite specific about how and when you can use red, never once it was said you can use it for anything that isn't a 100% certainty. Your interpretation fixes a bug but is completely at odd with anything that was said about red truths.

And in particular you are completely ignoring the fact that whenever one tries to say a red truth that isn't actually the truth he chokes and is unable to end the sentence. The clue example would work only provided that when someone tried to make wrong proclamation his red truth would break before being completed.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Well, I've been trying to make a distinction between the reader's effect on the game board and the detective's. Let's put it this way: Piece-Erika doesn't have to be an unreliable observer in order for the information relayed through her to be misinterpreted by the reader.

• Piece-Erika has a reliable viewpoint.
• Writer says: "Erika sees everyone on the island in the parlor."
• Piece-Erika observes 17 people in the parlor.
• However, the reader thinks that everyone = 18 people.
• Meanwhile, Piece-Erika herself is unaware that the 17 people she observes is everyone. (Keep in mind that Erika was not present in the Meta-World when "In other words, the number of people in this parlor now is equal to the total number of people on this island." was proclaimed.)

We now have a situation where Piece-Erika's viewpoint is reliable, but the reader has an incorrect impression of what Piece-Erika viewed. The fault lies entirely with the reader and writer, and none at all with Piece-Erika. Now, if a writer (Lambda in this case) fools a reader like this on purpose, she's being a bitch and not really playing fair; but, let's not forget that EP5 was labeled as a game played "without love", so it's not unreasonable to think that that's precisely what happened; in other words, EP5 was an example of a game where the rules were technically obeyed but the spirit of the game was ignored.

Well, first off, I, the reader, when I read that part I did not think that "everyone" was supposed to be 18 people. I thought it had to be 17 but the very fact that the detective was inside the room and didn't find anything wrong about the discrepancy with what she saw and what was stated destroyed a theory which I've been relying upon. That's because I start from the assumption that a character will make the best decision available to him unless I have a reason to think otherwise.

Meta-Erika might not have been there but Bernkastel was there and she must have seen the scene from when Meta-Erika played it before. So that means you'd have to think that for some unexplicable reason Bernkastel decided to keep sensible information hidden from Erika, and that she still kept that information hidden in EP6. So this would mean the main responsible for Erika's defeat and by extension Bernkastel's defeat in EP6 was Bernkastel herself.

I think we've already come to several similar explainations that I however contemplated all of them already in my initial post about this issue

check it:
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost...ostcount=25960

Given that it's either that Bernkastel is a complete idiot or she knew about Shkanon all along. With Erika it's a little more complicated, it is possible that she never saw that replay from Battler's perspective, but there's still the red truth. So either Erika wasn't given an important red truth, or (worse of all) she didn't actually have a reliable perpsective!!!

You aren't telling me anything new.

[UsagiTenpura]

Was thinking about something concerning prime.
I was basically wondering if Kinzo really died in it (I mean before 1986). From his self shown in arc 7 and especially arc 8, I wonder basically if Yasu didn't make something figurative into a literal truth of her gameboard. The idea would be something like the always angry Kinzo who he used to be and is shown in the stories "died" when Yasu solved the epitaph and became the Kinzo we've seen in arc 8. Doesn't that sorta make more sense then Kinzo's death really have been hidden for so long?

Btw concerning arc 5 and Erika, Dlanor mentioned that Bern and LD were planning something evil, which was probably both of them working together to frame Natsuhi basically. If we keep that in mind I don't think it's too far fetched to think Bern simply made Erika ignore everything that didn't fit into her theory.

What was important in a way from her pov is that Kanon wasn't "elsewhere" in the mansion more then both of them being actually there.


Edit: Another thing I was really wondering about is Bernkastel in general. If we take arc 1-2-3-4, in it we were shown Beatrice as the antagonist, but that gradually moved away. By the end of arc 4 it was hard to see her in a truly antagonistic light cause she sorta gave it away. Bernkastel however remained pretty much the antagonist of chiru until the end and only partially might have given it away when she had that talk about not wanting to be the villain in whatever new "when they cry" if it ever happens. So simply said I've been wondering if, just as we were supposed to uncover the heart of the antagonist of arc 1-2-3-4 and understand her, is Ryuukishi not wanting us to do the same thing for Bernkastel in the chiru arcs?

[Jan-Poo]

About Kinzo, I have already speculated about a plausible scenario where Kinzo is still alive and as far as what concerns me it's the most plausible scenario that I can apply to Rokkenjima Prime, albeit it's not necessarily the true one.

Btw concerning arc 5 and Erika, Dlanor mentioned that Bern and LD were planning something evil, which was probably both of them working together to frame Natsuhi basically. If we keep that in mind I don't think it's too far fetched to think Bern simply made Erika ignore everything that didn't fit into her theory.

That would work if it wasn't for EP6 where the mere knowledge of shkanon could save their life. Also it was smarter for Bern to tell Erika about that while telling her to roll with it and frame Natushi. It's not like Erika didn't know that Natsuhi wasn't actually the killer and it's not like she didn't know that Kinzo was already dead, so why it mattered that she didn't know about shkanon?! You can create a fake scenario a lot better if you know what really happened. Because if you don't know what really happened you are bound to incur in inconsistencies. So that's still a dumb move from Bernkastel.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

About Kinzo, I have already speculated about a plausible scenario where Kinzo is still alive and as far as what concerns me it's the most plausible scenario that I can apply to Rokkenjima Prime, albeit it's not necessarily the true one.

Ah well I don't know your specific scenario, but I guess we agree it makes more sense for him to still be alive by 1986 in prime.

That would work if it wasn't for EP6 where the mere knowledge of shkanon could save their life. Also it was smarter for Bern to tell Erika about that while telling her to roll with it and frame Natushi. It's not like Erika didn't know that Natsuhi wasn't actually the killer and it's not like she didn't know that Kinzo was already dead, so why it mattered that she didn't know about shkanon?! You can create a fake scenario a lot better if you know what really happened. Because if you don't know what really happened you are bound to incur in inconsistencies. So that's still a dumb move from Bernkastel.

Read my post's edits about Bern possibly playing an antagonist role in chiru the same way Beatrice did in the question arcs. In a certain light Bernkastel might have done things very similar to Beatrice - knew the truth but promoted fantasies (except Bern's aren't magical) to egg on Battler to reason things out. There's no reason she would give away ShKanon to us on a plate by arc 5 in that light and she made Erika unable to solve it in arc 6 again to egg us (or Beato) on to figure it out (and possibly show us "someone without love" or something).

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Meta-Erika might not have been there but Bernkastel was there and she must have seen the scene from when Meta-Erika played it before. So that means you'd have to think that for some unexplicable reason Bernkastel decided to keep sensible information hidden from Erika, and that she still kept that information hidden in EP6. So this would mean the main responsible for Erika's defeat and by extension Bernkastel's defeat in EP6 was Bernkastel herself.

Sure, Meta-Erika has access to Bern's knowledge about the Red and everything. However, that does not mean that she has access to EP5 Piece-Erika's knowledge.

[jjblue1]

I'm starting to think that the gameboard and the pieces don't really exist.

I'll try to explain myself better.

The meta characters are the equivalent of Roleplay players.

The Game master narrates a story and the players can stop him to say 'my character will do this or that' and the gamemaster will have to work said action in the story. Basically the pieces have no real will whatsoever and we only get the impression they have a will because the GM narrates the story making they move as if they have a will and taking care to keep them in character.

Among the rules of the game theres that no piece can move in a way that's out of character for him (there's something similar in RP when you create a piece that is supposed to be good and so you're forbidden from moving him in such a way that can be labelled as evil).

Another rule of the game is that the gamemaster must describe the actions of the detective truthfully, in short giving him a reliable point of observation.

The detective can't observe Shannon and Kanon at the same time so the gamemaster can't say he did so. However if the detective doesn't require to see Shannon and Kanon at the same time (like Will does in EP 7) the gamemaster through narration, can stop the detective from having the chance to notice this.

Also, since Erika as a character has certain characteristics, Lambda must work them in the story.

Now... Umineko provides us and the players with visual aid, as if the scene was really played under our eyes. However piece Erika isn't really experiencing it.
Picture her as a character of a computer game that moves according to yours inputs.
If you don't tell her to check for the corpses SHE WON'T DO IT.
If you don't tell her to check if everyone is in the parlour at the same time SHE WON'T DO IT.

So if player Erika didn't specifically ask to Lambda if her piece could see everyone at the same time in the parlour Lambda never had to reveal the info that piece Erika couldn't see everyone at the same time in the parlour.

Basically the trick is that Erika never checked if she could see everyone in the parlour at the same time, she was likely told that Battler could and that everyone was in the parlour.

Shouldn't the characteristic of piece Erika force Lambda to reveal that Erika can't see everyone at the same time?

Not really because Erika decides her piece would move in a way fitting to a guest and this forbids her from continuously looking around in each direction. It's unlikely she's against a wall so there's a lot of action taking place behind her that she can't see and confirm with her eyes.

So Lambda doesn't have to reveal this info unless Erika decides to say she'll have piece Erika try to see if she can see all the characters at the same time working the action in a way that will be in character for Erika, for example Erika might say she love to dance and make a quick spin around herself as if to prove it, using it to observe each corner of the room quickly, or she'll have her move toward a window or a door with an excuse and then turn toward the room.

If Erika does this Lambda will be forced to acknowledge Erika can't see everyone, though, of course, she might work the story in such a way it will still be 'normal' for Erika not to see everyone (Ex: 'as Erika walked toward the wall Kanon and Shannon left to get the dinner' or 'as Erika began to spin, the adults moved closer to her partially obscuring her view of the room').

Of course this might become a hint that there's something Lambda doesn't want Erika to notice but, as long as Lambda does it smoothly it'll become like the covers covering the bodies.
Erika's observation powers would have noticed the bodies weren't corpses but she saw nothing suspicious in them being covered, she had no suspicions about the bodies being alive or dead and so she simply didn't check.
If Lambda moves people in the room smoothly the fact they'll always stop Erika from having complete visual won't even look suspicious unless Erika kept on trying and something kept on getting in her way.

More likely though Erika might have used her detective authority to force Lambda to show her all the people in the room but she didn't do this either.

How this match with the visual aid provided?
The visual aid exists merely for the players' benefits. As long as it's not in piece Erika's perspective it can show all the characters at the same time as if it was a magic scene.

In fact visual aid shows magic scenes, for example Battler meeting Kinzo, but the narration make sure Erika doesn't see such scenes. So, when Battler says he 'saw grandfather' PieceErika was conveniently looking in another direction and, when she turned, Kinzo wasn't there anymore.

Note that Bern said that scene took place the first time the game was played as well so Erika and Bern were shown it, although Piece Erika of course was 'turned in another direction'.

Now, back to the parlour scene.
Let's pretend that Erika realized that Shannon and Kanon are the same person and therefore narrative lied when it claimed they both were in the parlour.

Now she might try to claim Lambda committed a logic error because her piece should have noticed the two of them weren't there.
Lambda's defence will likely be that she never claimed Erika had complete visual of the room and therefore she never observed all the people at the same time.
In addition to this Lambda has an advantage.
She has no refeer.

While Battler in game 6 had to show his cards to Lambda, Lambda doesn't have to show them to anyone and can even stop Dlanor's subordinates from using red truth.
She's her own refeer and judge so what she says is law.

Erika and Bern might object (as we do) but still it's Lambda who decides (like gamemasters in roleplays really...). You can't create a logic error in Lambda's game because it's up to her to decide how to interpretate things.
In short if she had been the gamemaster in EP 6 and Erika had said 'with checking the corpses I meant I killed them' she could have not accepted that interpretation and destroyed the logic error.
In the same way Beato as gamemaster accepted as interpretation that 'dead' might not mean phisically dead.
Battler instead has Lambda as external refeer. She accepts Erika's interpretation of the description of Piece Erika's actions thus the logic error is created.

And, hum... I'm trying to work this out better so sorry if it turned out a bit confusing...

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

Read my post's edits about Bern possibly playing an antagonist role in chiru the same way Beatrice did in the question arcs. In a certain light Bernkastel might have done things very similar to Beatrice - knew the truth but promoted fantasies (except Bern's aren't magical) to egg on Battler to reason things out. There's no reason she would give away ShKanon to us on a plate by arc 5 in that light and she made Erika unable to solve it in arc 6 again to egg us (or Beato) on to figure it out (and possibly show us "someone without love" or something).

Frankly I've seen no evidence that Bern was actually good and tried to help Battler by playing the villain's role. The only thing that she said in the end is that she played the villain's role, period. The same way Lambdadelta played the villain's role in their previous match. There was no second purpose, she had that role she had to play it right.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Sure, Meta-Erika has access to Bern's knowledge about the Red and everything. However, that does not mean that she has access to EP5 Piece-Erika's knowledge.

I think Renall wrote pages over pages explaying why this doesn't make sense. Meta Erika must have seen whatever Piece Erika has seen in the parlor. the detective authority would be pointless if it didn't affect its meta counterpart that's the real player.