[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni - Ep. 4 Alliance of the golden witch

[Kitsu]

Which was said in the forth game. Beatrice tinted everyone with black except Battler. And I think in the next games Battler will tint them white again

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Marion

Actually if you look at a chessboard the number of pieces each side has is 16. But there are 17 humans, including Battler. If you want, you can say Battler doesn't have his own piece on the board. But you can also say that one of the 17 is the culprit and that piece was transferred to Beatrice's side at the start of the game.

Oh, first post on page 100! Do I get a prize ?

If you buy the Kannon=Shannon theory there are 16 human pieces on the board.

But the non human pieces?

Beato (ep 2, 3 and 4)
7 sisters (ep 2 and 3)
3 siestas (ep 3 and 4, "00" only 4)
all of the goats (they count as one?) (ep 2, 3 and 4)
Virgilia (ep 3 and 4)
Ronove (ep 3 and 4)
Gaap (ep 4)
Goldsmith (ep 4)
Eva-Beatrice (ep 3)

Together they make more than 16, especially if you count the goats separately, but maybe th goat count as one and Beatrice can change her pieces every time so to never exceed the 16 limit. That would explain why the seven sisters do not participate in the fourth game as magical beings but just as normal stakes.

[Squirrellord]

Originally Posted by Alaya

To me, it's more like Battler is the only white piece on the board, where the rest are black...

Actually, he wasn't referring to the pieces color, but the squares. I remember when reading through, they kept using a word I didn't know and couldn't find in the dictionary, and then I found it was the word used to talk about the squares on a Chess board. Beatrice is saying that she's soaked Rokkenjima (the board) so thoroughly that there are no longer any white spaces. Battler responds that wherever he stands is a white space.
But you know, if we go with Shogi, the spaces aren't colored

Oh, and I haven't ever talked about the "little bombs" theory before ._o;
Perhaps my knowledge on the subject is just lacking (I remember 2 the least of all 4 parts), but let's go with Occam's Razor:
Q: How were the family member's stomachs opened?
A: They were cut open with a knife

Now, if you want to get technical, they were probably invited by "Beatrice" to go to the chapel, where she offered them food/drink/etc. Which was poisoned with a paralyzing drug. Then "Beatrice" went around taking out their organs (and perhaps doing so would remove toxicology experiments to determine the drug? If the drug was identified by any of the major organs), and replacing them with candy.

But, the big question is... Rosa was in the chapel the night before. Why is she alive?

[Alaya]

Is there any red truths that Maria never leave the guest house during the night? If no, then Maria could be accomplice to Rosa (although she might not realize that).

[Marion]

I can't recall any type of red truth that anyone that was ever in the guest house left it or not.

[k//eternal]

Originally Posted by Squirrellord

poisoned with a paralyzing drug

Or just, y'know, poison. No reason they had to be alive for the matter (although if they were... ouch).

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

If you buy the Kannon=Shannon theory there are 16 human pieces on the board.

But the non human pieces? Together they make more than 16, especially if you count the goats separately, but maybe th goat count as one and Beatrice can change her pieces every time so to never exceed the 16 limit.

If you count Eva-Beatrice as just being Eva, then that makes 16.

That said, I'm pretty sure the game they're playing isn't really "chess" because there are too many wrong points...

[Marion]

Yeah, it's mostly for analogies in my opinion.

[Nih]

Well, if we're getting technical and assuming poison was involved, it's not a bad idea to examine this red declaration.

"When the six who were in the chapel were killed, the culprit was in the chapel."

Does noone see anything wrong with this statement?


The red truth is like a politician's speech. You ask them a precise question and in return get an answer that could mean almost anything.

[Marion]

Originally Posted by Nih

Well, if we're getting technical and assuming poison was involved, it's not a bad idea to examine this red declaration.

"When the six who were in the chapel were killed, the culprit was in the chapel."

Does noone see anything wrong with this statement?


The red truth is like a politician's speech. You ask them a precise question and in return get an answer that could mean almost anything.

Well
-It only says the culprit was in it. It doesn't say whether the culprit was one of the 6 or whether it was a 7th person X
-No time is specified
-It only says the six who were in the chapel. But does that mean they were killed inside the chapel?? If you want to go further, you can use this statement and say There are 2 culprits. One who killed the six and the other who was in the chapel.

[Nih]

Well, you could interpret it that way, but what if we modify it like this

"When the six who were in the chapel were killed with poison in the dining room (why not?), the culprit who poisoned them was in the chapel."

For extra fun we can also question ourselves whether that scene in the chapel actually happened. And now you know why I have my doubts about Rosa being there in the first place. Of course this argument could go both ways.

[Alaya]

Maybe there's symbol that if it is shown, everyone would recognize that person as a witch? Something more or less like Kinzo's ring?

[Marion]

Originally Posted by Nih

Well, you could interpret it that way, but what if we modify it like this

"When the six who were in the chapel were killed with poison in the dining room (why not?), the culprit who poisoned them was in the chapel."

For extra fun we can also question ourselves whether that scene in the chapel actually happened. And now you know why I have my doubts about Rosa being there in the first place. Of course this argument could go both ways.

You mean when they discovered the bodies? I don't think we should doubt that to be honest.

Yes, that can be possible, but Beatrice or Lambda or whoever doesn't say that. Putting in those terms then...well that would be impossible, unless the culprit put poison into their food or drink and then went to the chapel. When the people died the culprit was already inside. Then accomplice X dragged the bodies into the chapel.

[Nih]

Could be. I think it may have something to do with the gold as well. Of course if the six died in the dining room, you have to also ask how would the corpses be carried to the chapel? But it doesn't have to be the dining room either. All of this is simply to show just how little we know about that situation so far.

P.S. No, I meant the scene in the chapel where all the adults recognized Beato.

[Hareoic]

Dug some things back up because I found them rather intriguing:

Spoiler for Beatrice's identity as relayed by Bernkastel (not related to the current discussion about the chapel):

Playing back through the first episode's hidden tea party, Bernkastel mentioned that Beatrice is "not necessarily 'one individual woman'", that she is "not some human", and that "her existence is a personification of the rules of this world." If her words at this point can be trusted, this opens up the possibility of Beatrice being an abstract concept, such as an emotion or even a physical event (the name of the typhoon).

Then, in Bernkastel's Letter, she mentions that what makes the "board" so difficult to understand is that it constantly changes shape. I'm guessing it might mean that the methods, motives, and culprits change from Episode to Episode (again, if she can be trusted at this point).

But more important than that was that the letter discussed Rule X, Y, and Z of Umineko. My question is this: Has anybody figured out what these rules might be by now?

[Alaya]

My theory is that

After the children went to sleep, the culprit drug six victims with slow acting sleeping drugs or poison and ask those six people to the chapel. He/she also show him/herself as Beatrice to Maria and ask her to come along, which Maria would be very likely to comply. Then he/she asked Maria to open the Chapel, tell her to wait outside and kill the 6 victims after the drug/poison take effect inside the chapel. After decorating the scenes, he/she told Maria to lock the door and sent her to bed. He/she might told Maria that there will be surprise party tomorrow and the adults are preparing the party inside. Or can be as straight forward as telling Maria those six were chosen as a first twilight.

After Maria went to bed, the culprit came back and decorate the front door.

EDIT: For rule X: The killing in the Rokkenjima proceed following what was written on the epitaph of the witch.

[Squirrellord]

Originally Posted by Marion

Well
-It only says the culprit was in it. It doesn't say whether the culprit was one of the 6 or whether it was a 7th person X
-No time is specified
-It only says the six who were in the chapel. But does that mean they were killed inside the chapel?? If you want to go further, you can use this statement and say There are 2 culprits. One who killed the six and the other who was in the chapel.

Well, it does kinda say they were killed IN the chapel, and that the killer was inside at that time.
礼拝堂での６人の殺害時、犯人は礼拝堂内にいたわ!
When the six were killed in the chapel, the culprit was inside the chapel!

My thinking was, Lambda says this to try and show that Battler's Trap theories were wrong. Why is it wrong? She never said that there was no trap used, just that, the killer was in the chapel at the same time the trap went off. We'll use the little bomb theory as an example, and use "Beatrice" as a variable for the killer:
Beatrice lures everyone to the dining hall, and gives them a meal laced with, everyone together now, little bombs. Then, after a few minutes to allow the bombs to nestle in the stomach (imagine how gruesome it'd been if they went off in the mouth or throat...), Beatrice then pushes the detonator, secretly. Trap X goes off, and kills the 6, but at the same time the killer was in the chapel (but not the same room!).

Also, I'd like to point out, as always, that the bodies were not wet. If we assume they were killed somewhere other than the chapel, and transported, there's a high possibility the corpses would have been soaking wet due to the storm. Without body-heat or some external heat source, their clothes would probably still have been soggy, which is never mentioned. So it's likely the victims came in of their own accord, with umbrellas, which were then disposed of by the criminal.

[Marion]

Originally Posted by Hareoic

Dug some things back up because I found them rather intriguing:

Spoiler for Beatrice's identity as relayed by Bernkastel (not related to the current discussion about the chapel):

Playing back through the first episode's hidden tea party, Bernkastel mentioned that Beatrice is "not necessarily 'one individual woman'", that she is "not some human", and that "her existence is a personification of the rules of this world." If her words at this point can be trusted, this opens up the possibility of Beatrice being an abstract concept, such as an emotion or even a physical event (the name of the typhoon).

Then, in Bernkastel's Letter, she mentions that what makes the "board" so difficult to understand is that it constantly changes shape. I'm guessing it might mean that the methods, motives, and culprits change from Episode to Episode (again, if she can be trusted at this point).

But more important than that was that the letter discussed Rule X, Y, and Z of Umineko. My question is this: Has anybody figured out what these rules might be by now?

The fact that the board is always changing probably atones to Beatrice's Endless power. She can make one event occur over and over, but in different forms. The means are different each time but the end is the same.

Possible rules:
-Battler will always go Missing on the 10th Twilight.
-No one will find the hidden gold
-Maria will always receive a letter from 'Beatrice'

The two rules I presented can explain EP 3: Eva finding the gold ended up breaking the rule that Battler goes missing.

[Nih]

Is that the actual statement? I was looking at the red compilation on page 15. Guess I'll check the episode to be sure

Edit: checked the tea party, my bad ^^;

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Hareoic

Dug some things back up because I found them rather intriguing:

Spoiler for Beatrice's identity as relayed by Bernkastel (not related to the current discussion about the chapel):

Playing back through the first episode's hidden tea party, Bernkastel mentioned that Beatrice is "not necessarily 'one individual woman'", that she is "not some human", and that "her existence is a personification of the rules of this world." If her words at this point can be trusted, this opens up the possibility of Beatrice being an abstract concept, such as an emotion or even a physical event (the name of the typhoon).

Then, in Bernkastel's Letter, she mentions that what makes the "board" so difficult to understand is that it constantly changes shape. I'm guessing it might mean that the methods, motives, and culprits change from Episode to Episode (again, if she can be trusted at this point).

But more important than that was that the letter discussed Rule X, Y, and Z of Umineko. My question is this: Has anybody figured out what these rules might be by now?

I believe the "Rule Z" she's talking about there is (or is related to) the Beatrice obfuscation story that prevents analysis of the real course of events by creating an explanation that assigns everything to witches (usually Beatrice, but sometimes another individual with a similar role). It would be quite difficult to determine "Rule X" and "Rule Y" of the murders - at least if you believe all the murders are done by humans - while you have a crazy magic story to contend with as well.

Of course, with the meta-world layer, it's hard to say what the "rules" are meant to apply to. Are they greater rules of Beatrice's game itself that she and Battler must obey? Are they rules confined to the "real world" events on the island? If we're talking about the meta-world, one of the rules could be the red text itself (that is, the rule is "red text is true").

[Nih]

I would feel uneasy about red being related to any sort of rule

Edit: implied relation was to rules x, y and z since one of them can be broken.