How to win vs Perdita

[Kadeton]

Also it does not matter if you engage the Austringers in melee, the Sh7 skill has no pistol icon (only if focused), this also means he ignores all miniatures when shooting into melee.

 

It matters because they can no longer Focus their attack or kill models at long range (the ones that are doing your schemes), and they generally only do 1 Wd per shot. Then your engaging models rip them apart because they're really squishy.

[dgraz]

not letting your opponent know that Obey can be used on your own models when you think that they don't know that would be deception. 

But where do you draw the line with this? To you, it's deception......to me, it's knowing the game. It's one thing if I'm teaching someone.....or if they're a relatively novice player that hasn't faced many crews before. But if I'm playing against someone that's been playing for a while, or I'm at a tournament.....when is it time for people to take a little responsibility for themselves?

 

I've been playing a long time. If I get caught by something I didn't know a model could do that's not deception. That's my fault for not doing my homework. Having the expectation that people should tell you what you don't know is lazy and selfish gaming. I'd be annoyed if I had to slow down my game to explain every thing my crew can do to someone that's been playing for a year. How about if the other player does something....then on my turn I realize that there's something cool I can do.....then that guy....who's expecting me to tell him about things.....tells me I deceived him.....or gives me a 'why didn't you tell me you could do that?'......I'd be more than annoyed. I'd tell that guy to go Fork himself. When does it get to the point that I'm just playing they're game for them? That's not why I play.

 

I read the books.....I read the tactic threads.....I read the advice threads. I don't play NB, but when I see a new thread asking about tactics for NB I don't ignore it because I don't play them......I go read it and maybe I learn something that I can use the next time a face an NB crew. Why would I be "deceptive" because I expect other people to do their own study?

 

Yes, if someone is about to Paralyze my Frozen Heart model, I'll remind them that I'm immune.......but I'm not going to tell them that they shouldn't bunch up if I'm playing Sonnia or Raspy......they should know that. Again, unless I'm playing against a novice....I don't newb stomp.

[Dirial]

Agree with dgraz. This definition of deception is too broad to get any worth out of it for practical gaming.

[EnternalVoid]

I have to agree with dgraz.  I tend to remind my opponents of some things but on rather general things like that Nicodem is a summoner, Seamus has a big mean gun, Pandora can generally only attacks willpower, attack actions can target friendly models, summoned models are slow, whether a model has a   attack or not, those are generally things I expect my opponent to know or if they don't know about a model to ask to look at the card before the game starts.  Unless they are new in which case I am very open about all information.  If I think I might be forgetting anything about my opponents models after they reveal their crew the first thing I generally ask is to see the card in question.

[MrKittens]

I go for the middle ground: when I sit down with someone to play a match, before we start, I ask, "What should I know about your crew?  What stands out as the thing to watch for, and what are the general trends?"  While I neither expect, nor want, my opponent to stop me every time it looks like they might stumble in to my trap, or me in to theirs, I do want the basics of the high points covered.  There are a lot of models in this game, and I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect every single player to memorize every single model's every single ability.

 

I'm confused by the sentiments expressed above.  This is a game, and the people I play with are my friends (or at least people whose company I find affable).  I want them to have a good time... outside of tournaments, isn't that the whole point (and still largely the point at tournaments)?  While it's true that tournaments are a different beast, with a greater emphasis on both timeliness and competitiveness, I have to ask... is the prevailing sentiment here really to expect everyone who plays the game to approach it with the fastidiousness of research expected of a second job?  Because honestly, if the baseline we're working from is Dgraz talking about reading every thread that comes up which could be pertinent, hey more power to you buddy!  It probably makes you a better player... but I don't think it's reasonable to expect literally everyone who plays to have the same "work ethic." 

 

Because when we leave the realm of two folks chatting about putting painted figs on a board, and enter the realm wherein the best description is, "work ethic," I think we've hit a problem. 

 

I think it's a false dichotomy to claim that if we take time to explain our models to folks, it's playing their game for them.

[Reynard-Miri]

But where do you draw the line with this? To you, it's deception......to me, it's knowing the game. It's one thing if I'm teaching someone.....or if they're a relatively novice player that hasn't faced many crews before. But if I'm playing against someone that's been playing for a while, or I'm at a tournament.....when is it time for people to take a little responsibility for themselves?

 

The line is whether you are purposefully withholding information. If you think they already know, then you're not purposefully withholding information, regardless of whether they actually know or not. (You would be accidently withholding information.)

[Myyrä]

I personally think that everyone who has played the game for significant amount of time should be aware that it is possible to shoot around corners using models that can't be randomed as targets. It doesn't really require any secret or crew specific information because it is spelled out pretty clearly in the rulebook. There are models in at least three factions that can be used to pull it off.

[dgraz]

I go for the middle ground: when I sit down with someone to play a match, before we start, I ask, "What should I know about your crew?  What stands out as the thing to watch for, and what are the general trends?"  While I neither expect, nor want, my opponent to stop me every time it looks like they might stumble in to my trap, or me in to theirs, I do want the basics of the high points covered.  There are a lot of models in this game, and I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect every single player to memorize every single model's every single ability.

 

I'm confused by the sentiments expressed above.  This is a game, and the people I play with are my friends (or at least people whose company I find affable).  I want them to have a good time... outside of tournaments, isn't that the whole point (and still largely the point at tournaments)?  While it's true that tournaments are a different beast, with a greater emphasis on both timeliness and competitiveness, I have to ask... is the prevailing sentiment here really to expect everyone who plays the game to approach it with the fastidiousness of research expected of a second job?  Because honestly, if the baseline we're working from is Dgraz talking about reading every thread that comes up which could be pertinent, hey more power to you buddy!  It probably makes you a better player... but I don't think it's reasonable to expect literally everyone who plays to have the same "work ethic." 

 

Because when we leave the realm of two folks chatting about putting painted figs on a board, and enter the realm wherein the best description is, "work ethic," I think we've hit a problem. 

 

I think it's a false dichotomy to claim that if we take time to explain our models to folks, it's playing their game for them.

Your first paragraph is great and I totally agree with it. I will do the same if I see something I don't recognize and I will freely tell you something if you ask. I agree that you can't 'memorize' every model or synergy (unless you're Sheldon Cooper) and to expect it would be unreasonable..........however, what I think is reasonable is to expect a player to have a general knowledge of the models.......novices aside....but intermediate (meaning you've been playing semi-regularly for a few months at least) and above. General knowledge like EternalVoid mentioned above. If you've been playing that long, then you've had plenty of time to read through the book to have at least a vague understanding of how things work.....and the longer you've been playing, the more I expect you to know.

I agree that it's a game and the main reason people play it is to have fun. Boiling it down to 'work ethic' is a little too black and white. When two people agree to play a game, they are creating a social contract.....'I want to have fun and I'll try to make sure we both have fun' is about how I look at that. In that context I don't think it's wrong to expect an opponent to have some knowledge....to have put in some time learning the game.....constantly asking what models can do or stopping every activation to read my cards seriously slows down the game.....I have a family and a job....I get one night out a week to play.....if I've scheduled you a learning game, then that's fine and I don't care how far we get even if we don't finish.......but if we are just playing and I have to quit at turn 4 because it took us 3 hours to get there you've completely ruined my night and I'm not having the fun I should have (what's even worse, is doing that and then telling me you have to quit and leave.....that is extremely un-fun.) 

 

So, do I expect you to do the level of research I do? No that would be absurd (because I have issues) But do I expect you to have done at least some homework so the game doesn't drag on for four hours....absolutely.

 

And you misunderstood my sentiment about playing their game for them......explaining how a model works at the start of the game is one thing and that's not what I was talking about.......when I said it I was talking about people expecting me to warn them that they're about to do something stupid.

[dgraz]

The line is whether you are purposefully withholding information. If you think they already know, then you're not purposefully withholding information, regardless of whether they actually know or not. (You would be accidently withholding information.)

I'm not in their head. I have no idea what they know or don't know, and it's not my responsibility to figure that out. If I'm teaching then I will act like they know nothing but if we're playing....sorry, the onus is on them to either know it or ask if they aren't sure

[Uktena]

I'm not in their head. I have no idea what they know or don't know, and it's not my responsibility to figure that out. If I'm teaching then I will act like they know nothing but if we're playing....sorry, the onus is on them to either know it or ask if they aren't sure

There's always eat the trap once and learn from your mistakes as well. I'll explain black blood, and maybe remind them once, but I won't make that consideration for them.

[Reynard-Miri]

I'm not in their head. I have no idea what they know or don't know, and it's not my responsibility to figure that out. If I'm teaching then I will act like they know nothing but if we're playing....sorry, the onus is on them to either know it or ask if they aren't sure

 

That is completely and entirely irrelevant to whether one is being deceptive or not. I feel like you're arguing there there's nothing bad with not telling your opponent these things, which is confusing to me because I'm not arguing the ethics or morality of anything.

[Fetid Strumpet]

My perspective:

If I sit down against someone I've never played, the context matters.

In a tournament I'm going to be as pleasent, personally, as I can. However I'm a competitive player, and if I am playing in a tournament I'm playing to win, and I expect my opponent is as well. I will willingly and honestly answer any basic questions about what my crew can do when asked, but I'm not going to volunteer information that wasn't asked about, and I'm not going to explain what things can be done as combos that you should look out for. I assume you will have knowledge and competence to know either what my stuff does, or, if I have models that are unfamiliar to you, you will ask to read their cards, AND THEN do so. I'm totally willing to explain rules that you might not understand from their cards, but I'm not going to help you beat me by telling you: "well you better watch out for Yin and sybelle together. If yin gets her 0 action to land on you, sybelle is going to follow up with hers and effectively lock down your model, and then smack them silly."

In a casual game if I'm playing against someone I don't know well I usually show them the masters I have with me and ask if they have any preferences as to masters they don't want to play against. When I choose the one I'm going to play I generally ask if they are familiar, in general, with what that master does, and if they aren't I give them my cards and give them as long as they want to read them, and ill give laymen explain actions for any abilities they find unclear.

Additionally if there are no Brainer abilities or powers they should be aware of, for example, killjoy popping out from deaths/ sacrifices, I warn them about them, but I'm not going to go into every possible application of abilities I might use. If its a newer player I don't go comborific, but a person whose played a bit, I don't feel I have any responsibility before the game begins to tell them:

"Ok, watch out. I have a black blood shaman and two illuminated, and that BBS is going to give BB to both illuminated T1, and then for the rest of the game hammer any model that gets near them with black blood pustule, so don't bunch up."

I will say things like: you've never played against raspy? Be careful of ending in b2b with frozen heart models, and really don't bunch up.

Never played against Seamus? Keep him in Los if you can, apply debilitating conditions if you can, but don't waste ap trying to kill him unless you absolutely need him dead and can absolutely finish the job.

Playing against Molly for the first time? Be careful of bunching up and watch out for black blood.

[MrKittens]

I was worried about where this conversation was going, but I think we're all in general agreement about being functionally communicative with our opponents (and varyingly so, depending on the circumstances behind the game and our opponents' experiences), but not giving them our intended playbooks each turn.  Does that seem like the case with most folks?

 

I was mostly surprised by the combo Frank charges something 'Dita can't see, so she can shoot it.  I had to look rules up a bit before that even made any sense, and I do think that kind of bizarre rules interaction (specifically, something that doesn't seem representative of what the RAW on each model's cards, or even what one might suspect Wyrd had intended... Perdita can shoot around corners, but only if Francisco is glaring at them with his sword does, I think, seem a little silly) should be covered beforehand.  There's not much chance folks will spot that one, even after a reading-through of the cards.

[Kadeton]

When Francisco engages a model in melee, they're not standing still glaring at each other. They're fighting, advancing, circling, clinching, breaking, etc - they move around. When the opponent moves out from their hiding place (or Francisco drags them out), Perdita shoots them. The game is an abstraction.

 

The debate about "deception" seems pointless to me. The issue of whether or not you are deceiving your opponent (without actually cheating) is completely subjective, and the only outcome that matters is whether your opponent is upset with you. If not upsetting your opponent is important to you (if you want a fun game, for example), try not to upset them, and adjust your behaviour as necessary. Don't try to talk them out of being upset by arguing that your "deception" was acceptable within the rules, that just makes you a huge dick.

 

If not upsetting your opponent is less important to you than winning, such as if you're in a highly competitive tournament situation, then don't worry about upsetting them. Just be aware that if you bring that same behaviour to a friendly context, people will probably be reluctant to play with you in future.

 

Either way, the outcome is very personal - you can feel good about being honest and friendly, you can feel good about winning, you can feel bad when your opponent accuses you of tricking them, you can feel bad when you lose. Make your own choices accordingly. Any attempt at "analysis" or categorising certain behaviours as universally "deceptive" or not is nonsense.

[Dirial]

I agree with Kadeton. She is shooting into a dynamic melee, not around the corner.

Also, and that's why this argument is confusing me, anyone can do it. Granted, they hit their own guy with a 50% probability, but they can hit the guy behind the corner as well. Raspy or Criid seldom hesitate to try it either way. You should expect this particulr trick because it's a very typical Malifaux rule. Perdita does it a little better, but any Neverborn can do it just as well. It's just not a very dirty or "deceptive" trick in my eyes.

[MrKittens]

Either way, the outcome is very personal - you can feel good about being honest and friendly, you can feel good about winning, you can feel bad when your opponent accuses you of tricking them, you can feel bad when you lose. Make your own choices accordingly. Any attempt at "analysis" or categorising certain behaviours as universally "deceptive" or not is nonsense.

 

While I still think this conversation has gotten the forum to a point where we can functionally discuss the game, I do feel compelled to chime back in to point something out: on the one hand, you adhere to the relativist perspective of keeping in mind how you want to play, and what you want to get out of a game; this is fine.  But, at the end of your assertion, you change directions to using objectivist terminology... specifically, "Any attempt at 'analysis'... is nonsense."

 

I encourage two things:  First, to not call your fellow forum-users nonsensical; while you may disagree with what I have to say (that's fine), I think I can, at the very least, make a sensible argument.  Second, there's some conflicting messaging around asserting that one should construct what one wants to get out of the game, and then immediately afterward say that disagreement with your position is simply untenable. 

 

Consider a reframing:  "Discuss point A all you like, but remember, disagreeing with me on point B is wrong."

 

That's all I have to say here, but if you feel likewise compelled to reply, we should perhaps consider taking this to IMs.  Either way, I hope you enjoy your day!

[Bodiless]

Then Perdita killed Candy and the Doppleganger in 1 turn (ignores Manipulative) and then Pandora on the next one. Pandora's situation was kinda ridiculous, having to choose a target from 3 possibilities : WP9, WP8, WP7 but Stubborn. 

Then he killed all my crew by turn 4 and used turn 5 to take all the markers and remove my line in the sand markers, would have been tie if game had ended in turn 5, but it went into 6.

 

 

This thread wandered pretty far afield, and I was curious about something that actually happened during this game. Were Candy and Doppelganger already pretty injured by the time this happened? Perdita's shooting is pretty crazy, but the damage spread is 2/4/5 and does not have critical strike built in. Was this just a crazy run of cards that took out both models, or had they already been whittled away?

[Reynard-Miri]

By the way, how did the Silurids pan out? They seem like they'd have helped against a lot of the things you've had trouble with. (Can't ignore LoS or cover against them; negative flip on Charge or Sh attacks if they haven't activated yet.)