Save Dr. Lucky is a new Cheapass game which is a wonderfully clever meta sequal to Kill Dr. Lucky. The mechanics are essentially identical, except you're on the sinking Titanic and you want to save instead of kill Dr. Lucky. To save him you must be seen by another player (as opposed to Kill Dr. Lucky where to kill him you must not be seen by another player). The game's pace is faster than Kill Dr. Lucky since the ship is sinking, which actually destroys successive levels of the board, and so gameplay can't go on indefinitely!
The 10 F-2 failure cards each contain part of a logic puzzle. Here are the clues:
We have 8 entities: F, G, H, I and S, T, U, V. There are 4 properties A, B, C, D. I write A(F) to mean Frank is an Anderson. I write m(F,S) to mean Frank and Selma are married.
Here's what we know from each rule in isolation:
4: not B(F)
5: not D(T)
6: not C(I)
7: not A(H) and not A(F)
8: not m(S,I) and not C(S) and not C(I)
9: not D(U)
In isolation, clue 6 tells us nothing clue 8 doesn't also tell us. But clue 6 is important since it interacts with clue 7: Isaac wouldn't play bridge with Mr. Carver if he's not on speaking terms with the Carvers, so if Isaac played bridge, Henry and Frank are not Carvers:
6&7: A(I) implies not C(H) and not C(F)
Equivalently, if Henry or Frank is a Carver, then Isaac did not play bridge:
6&7: C(H) or C(F) implies not A(I)
We deduce from clue 10 that Victoria's husband would not play bridge, so
7&10: not m(V,F) and not m(V,H) and not A(V)
We also know from clue 5 that Thelma's husband never met Mr. Dawson, therefore it's not possible that the 2 men played bridge (clue 7). So if Thelma's husband was a bridge player, Dawson was not:
5&7: m(T,H) implies not D(F)
5&7: m(T,F) implies not D(H)
5&7: A(T) implies not D(H) and not D(F)
Equivalently, If Dawson was a bridge player, Thelma's husband was not:
5&7: D(F) implies not m(T,H) and not A(T)
5&7: D(H) implies not m(T,F) and not A(T)
These puzzles get a little annoying with things like clues 5 & 6; can we assume that Isaac wouldn't talk about whether he's on speaking terms with the Carvers if he hadn't met Mr. Carver? I'll assume so:
5&6: D(I) implies not C(T)
Equivalently,
5&6: C(T) implies not D(I)
Here's a table showing what we know (X means an impossible combination; the subscript tells the rule(s) implying it). (The table can't show the implications like 6&7.)
Frank | Gary | Henry | Isaac | Anderson | Brown | Carver | Dawson | |
Selma | X8 | X8 | ||||||
Thelma | X5 | |||||||
Ursula | X9 | |||||||
Victoria | X7&10 | X7&10 | X7&10 | |||||
Anderson | X7 | X7 | ||||||
Brown | X4 | |||||||
Carver | X6,8 | |||||||
Dawson |
Let's assume A(I) and see what happens. This tells us not A(H) and not B(I) and not D(I). Using 6&7 we know not C(F) and not C(H). That tells us D(F), which tells us not D(G) and not D(H), which tells us B(H), which tells us not B(G), which tells us C(G). This completes the lower left portion, telling us all the mens' surnames:
Frank Gary Henry Isaac Anderson Brown Carver Dawson Selma X8 X8 Thelma X5&7 X5&7 X5 Ursula X9 Victoria X7&10 X7&10 X7&10 Anderson X7 X7 XA(I) YESassume Brown X4 XB(H) YES XA(I) Carver X6&7 YES X6&7 X6,8 Dawson YES XD(F) XD(F) XA(I) Using 5&7 and D(F), we know not m(T,H) and not A(T). A(I), therefore not m(I,T) and not m(T,V) (since in these puzzles married couples have the same last name). Thus m(I,U) and m(G,V), so not m(G,S) and not m(G,T) and not m(G,U). Also by the marriage last name rule, Frank Dawson can't be married to Thelma or Ursula, so m(F,S). But now we reach a contradiction: Henry can only be married to Selma or Ursula, but they're already married to Frank and Issac. And poor Thelma isn't married to anyone. Therefore our initial assumption A(I) has led to a contradiction, and so it must be that not A(I). Here's the table leading to the contradiction:
Frank Gary Henry Isaac Anderson Brown Carver Dawson Selma YES X X8 X8 Thelma X X X5&7 X X5&7 X5 Ursula X X YES X9 Victoria X7&10 YES X7&10 X X7&10 Anderson X7 X7 XA(I) YESassume Brown X4 XB(H) YES XA(I) Carver X6&7 YES X6&7 X6,8 Dawson YES XD(F) XD(F) XA(I)
So let's backtrack now that we know not A(I). That implies A(H), which implies not B(H) and not C(H) and not D(H). So we have:
Frank | Gary | Henry | Isaac | Anderson | Brown | Carver | Dawson | |
Selma | X8 | X8 | ||||||
Thelma | X5 | |||||||
Ursula | X9 | |||||||
Victoria | X7&10 | X7&10 | X7&10 | |||||
Anderson | X7 | X7 | YES | Xproved | ||||
Brown | X4 | XA(H) | ||||||
Carver | XA(H) | X6,8 | ||||||
Dawson | XA(H) |
Now let's assume m(T,H) since we'll be able to use 5&7 and this gives us lots of Xs in the upper left (not m(H,S) and not m(H,U) and not m(F,T) and not m(G,T) and not m(I,T)). 5&7; tells us not D(F). That gives us C(F), which gives us not C(G). Thus we have:
Frank | Gary | Henry | Isaac | Anderson | Brown | Carver | Dawson | |
Selma | Xm(T,H) | X8 | X8 | |||||
Thelma | Xm(T,H) | Xm(T,H) | YESassume | Xm(T,H) | X5 | |||
Ursula | Xm(T,H) | X9 | ||||||
Victoria | X7&10 | X7&10 | X7&10 | |||||
Anderson | X7 | X7 | YES | Xproved | ||||
Brown | X4 | XA(H) | ||||||
Carver | YES | XC(F) | XA(H) | X6,8 | ||||
Dawson | X5&7 | XA(H) |
Now again use that married people have the same last name. Frank Carver can't be married to Selma, so m(F,U), which tells us not m(G,U) and not m(I,U). Now Isaac can only be married to Victoria, so not m(G,V), so m(G,S).
Frank | Gary | Henry | Isaac | Anderson | Brown | Carver | Dawson | |
Selma | X | YES | Xm(T,H) | X8 | X8 | |||
Thelma | Xm(T,H) | Xm(T,H) | YESassume | Xm(T,H) | X5 | |||
Ursula | YES | Xm(F,U) | Xm(T,H) | Xm(F,U) | X9 | |||
Victoria | X7&10 | Xm(I,V) | X7&10 | YES | X7&10 | |||
Anderson | X7 | X7 | YES | Xproved | ||||
Brown | X4 | XA(H) | ||||||
Carver | YES | XC(F) | XA(H) | X6,8 | ||||
Dawson | X5&7 | XA(H) |
Now we know who's married to whom. Let's carry over the known last names of husbands to wives. m(F,U) and C(F) imply C(U), and thus not A(U) and not B(U) and not C(T) and not C(V). m(H,T) and A(H) imply A(T) and thus not B(T) and not A(S).
Frank | Gary | Henry | Isaac | Anderson | Brown | Carver | Dawson | |
Selma | X | YES | Xm(T,H) | X8 | XA(T) | X8 | ||
Thelma | Xm(T,H) | Xm(T,H) | YESassume | Xm(T,H) | YESm(T,H) | XA(T) | XC(U) | X5 |
Ursula | YES | Xm(F,U) | Xm(T,H) | Xm(F,U) | XC(U) | XC(U) | YESm(U,F) | X9 |
Victoria | X7&10 | Xm(I,V) | X7&10 | YES | X7&10 | XC(U) | ||
Anderson | X7 | X7 | YES | Xproved | ||||
Brown | X4 | XA(H) | ||||||
Carver | YES | XC(F) | XA(H) | X6,8 | ||||
Dawson | X5&7 | XA(H) |