Discussion on deception in Malifaux (and tabletop gaming in general)

[jonahmaul]

Getting back to the question at hand. I feel that there also a big downside to this "full disclosure" line that some of you seem to be driving. What do you do when your opponent asks you: Can you kill my model this turn somehow if I move it here? (And I'm not talking about checking distance to another model here or anything.) I personally get a strong urge to tell that guy to go f*ck himself. I don't actually do that, but I won't tell if I can charge that model or not if I'm playing even relatively seriously. It's like opponent asking in chess if his knight will get taken within the next five moves if he moves it to A5.

I suppose what I'm trying to ask here is: Where do you draw the line? What is too much information demanded/given?

Well you have know way of knowing if you can kill something for sure because of the number of random elements in the game.  Also you could very well say yes I could kill that model but then leave it completely alone because it does nothing in terms of gaining you VPs.  I don't really think this is the kind of question that is covered by deception which I consider to be deliberately misleading people about what your models can do.  If they asked if you could kill it and you said no but it was a Gremlin and you had a 13   in hand with a Flesh Construct next to it so knew you could just devour it then that would be out of order.  But I don't think they're the kind of questions people are likely to ask anyway (unless it was a beginner game in which I would be disclosing everything).

 

Anecdote time!  I had revealed Protect Territory and Breakthrough and had a smattering of scheme markers around the board at the end of turn 4 such that I would score full VP for both schemes if nothing changed.  My opponent asked me how many VP I had, to which I replied "3" (I had 3VP from Turf War at that point).  He then asked how many VP I would have at the end of the game if nothing changed.  In a nice way, I told him to figure it out since all the relevant information was right on the board.  You shouldn't have to play the game for your opponent or help them analyze the board.

I agree, everything is already fully disclosed so you've done your part.  It's not up to you to tell your opponent how many VPs you could score when you've already done everything required by the rules.

 

I think a lot of the 'what about this' examples are examples that are often unlikely to occur and don't really occur under the intent of the deception article which is about deliberately misleading an opponent.

[Ausplosions]

Ask your questions in an "open" format. Not closed.

Use T. E. D. S: Tell me, explain to me, describe to me, show me.

Not "is it hard to kill?" or "What's his defences like?" Those are rubbish questions that can sometimes elicit rubbish answers.

[Bengt]

appearing to forget a mini in their backline corner in a forest out of sight and out of mind. This is not cheating its strategy.

Do you mean forget to Activate it? All applicable models must activate for the Activation Phase to end, it's clearly not optional (p 35) for models to activate. So proceeding to the End Phase when you know there are models waiting to activate would be cheating. 

[Jimbobovalsocks]

People can ask me whatever they like! I'd never refuse information. The only time I've ever got grumpy with a person was when I was trying to play and a third-party observer kept telling me that I should be playing a different master and I should have bought a different list and so on and so forth. Apart from a situation like this when a person who isn't part of the game gives you useless information that gets in the way of both player's enjoyment, I can't imagine that anyone could say or do anything really to piss me off all that much! Each to their own though. Different levels of 'openness' lead to different play experiences so I usually don't expect my opponent to play the game for me by asking him lots of questions about strategy and tactics but if someone wants to play like that, fair play to them!!

[SpiralngCadavr]

Ask your questions in an "open" format. Not closed.

Use T. E. D. S: Tell me, explain to me, describe to me, show me.

Not "is it hard to kill?" or "What's his defences like?" Those are rubbish questions that can sometimes elicit rubbish answers.

If this in response to my hypotheticals, that was an oversimplification. Normally I'd ask something along the lines, what is a model's current WP/DF, any penalties other than the obvious, if there are any tests involved in targeting the model, and if the model has defensive triggers, and if it has any immunities relevant to what I'm attacking with. If I'm trying to kill the model, then if it has H2W or any other forms of damage reduction. If things are getting complex, then I'd ask to see the mini's card(s) and hear anything other models are doing that would affect it. Obviously, I won't ask this every time.xx

[Jonasty]

If they asked if you could kill it and you said no but it was a Gremlin and you had a 13   in hand with a Flesh Construct next to it so knew you could just devour it then that would be out of order.

 

This isn't really a good example though because I'd be required to say "Yes" since I have the relevant card in hand to get something off almost guaranteed?  Sure you can tell your opponent you have an ability that insta-kills Ht 1 models but that doesn't mean you're going to use it.  And it certainly has no bearing on what cards are in your hand.  Should I tell him "No" if I'm holding all 1's and 2's?  And of course the regular attack could just as easily kill it with a Severe or RJ flip so there's that chance as well if I took it.

 

Not trying to be nit-picky, the example just didn't sit well with me cause outside of Peon vs Master really any model can kill any other if the cards are right.

[jonahmaul]

Not trying to be nit-picky, the example just didn't sit well with me cause outside of Peon vs Master really any model can kill any other if the cards are right.

That was kinda my point, although you are right that my example was poor (I was typing in a rush in work!) so not nit-picky!  But yeah, essentially the answer to could you kill that is yes in most situations.  But that doesn't mean you will.

[Mastershake]

So for me overly broad questions like "Can model X kill model Y" deserve overly broad answers.  If I was asked this during a game, my likely response would involve a shrug and a confused expression with the word "Yes".  If asked to explain this, I'd probably say "Anything is possible with the right cards".  This question involves a lot of things your opponent is not entitled to know like what's going to get flipped, what's in your hand etc.  In theory most damage tracks can kill most models on a charge especially with a Red Joker, so a question like this is very deserving of a non-answer.

 

I agree.  I somehow missed those definitions earlier in the thread, but after having read them, I would say they make a very good distinction.

 

This is another good point.  If you ask poor questions you should be prepared for poor answers.  In this case, I would either say "I don't know" or just tell them "yes," since they're clearly worried about about that model dying. 

 

Anecdote time!  I had revealed Protect Territory and Breakthrough and had a smattering of scheme markers around the board at the end of turn 4 such that I would score full VP for both schemes if nothing changed.  My opponent asked me how many VP I had, to which I replied "3" (I had 3VP from Turf War at that point).  He then asked how many VP I would have at the end of the game if nothing changed.  In a nice way, I told him to figure it out since all the relevant information was right on the board.  You shouldn't have to play the game for your opponent or help them analyze the board.

 

This I can't get behind.  Your opponent ask you a very direct question with a numerical value for the answer and all of the information is something he's entitled to.  It's like asking how many wounds a model has left and responding with "Figure it out".  I could waste both of our time figuring it out, or you could just tell me.  I've already asked the question, the deception is over unless I can't do math.  Continuing playing charades with your opponent is just wasting time.

 

Now if Protect Territory was unrevealed, then my answer would be "So far X for the strat plus unrevealed schemes".  That's kind of the point of revealing a scheme, it's not a secret anymore, but you get more VPs.

 

EDIT:

If you want to know whether you're deception is acceptable or if you're just being a douchebag ask two questions:

1.  Is my opponent entitled to this information?  If they aren't anything you give them is free and you should never accept freebies from an opponent.

 

2.  Is not giving the other person this information just wasting time?  If you're opponent ask you about a model's defenses and you're deliberately vague or give a remark like "Would you like to know more?" you're basically wasting time.  They've asked about the model and they're going to find out even if you're unhelpful, so there's not much incentive to being evasive here.  At the very least think of it as lulling them into a false sense of security that you'll be upfront.

 

At the end of the day I don't volunteer everything to my opponent (in fact I'll rarely give anything that isn't asked for), but if they asked a directed question and everything about the answer is things they're entitled to by the rules, being evasive at that point just burns away any good will you may have with that person.

[LunarSol]

I take issue with the idea of deception by omission of open state information because its a poor habit for winning tournaments.  I don't mean this in a, "people will think less of you" sort of way, but that it is legitimately handicapping yourself to win games due to gaps in your opponents knowledge.  In truth, that will win you games, and locally, you will often take first place, but as soon as you find yourself on the finals tables with the big fish from other areas, that trick falls completely flat.  My stance on the issue is that if I can't beat you without telling you any applicable rules for the situation at hand, I'm not going to be able to beat a player who knows those rules and has been making their decisions with those rules in mind.  In tournaments, my goal is to keep winning games not so much because I'm particularly competitive, but because in my experience, the mid-tier tables are where I find my contentious games against players who have only gotten so far by preying on the ignorance of others. 

 

It comes down to this for me.  If you're winning your games by failing to mention a model is Hard to Kill or something like that, you're really just limiting yourself and likely making your community a less inviting place.  I can't tell you how many games of various systems I've played where a player feels I got extremely lucky because in their experience a model survives that situation when their experience does not include a player who has compensated for the rules they've omitted.  I also can't tell you how many communities I've seen fractured by players getting burned in these kind of situations and deciding that the people they game with aren't trustworthy anymore.  I'm pretty opposed to hiding open information because its just not worth winning THAT game and it certainly won't win you a championship.

 

NOTE: The above does not pertain to information that is intended to be closed by the rules of the game.  This includes cards in hand, unrevealed schemes and even intentions, like why you put a model somewhere.  Asking proper questions is as important as giving proper answers and I'm mostly speaking to the kind of deception that involves technically answering a question but omitting specific information in hopes of gaining a "gotcha" advantage, even if technically correct IS the best kind of correct.

[Flint]

Well, the ideal is a chess game (for me also ideal of a miniature game if we talk about luck/skills factor): you know your models and  what to expect from enemy models. Card should be always available for opponent to read, and opponent should provide info about models when asked (other story is that i do not provide myself with info about my crew's abilities, always forgetting about things i can do,  which could explain my horrible defeats). That's how we play and i always considered this as a standard, not something exceptional. Gambit is an example of "good deceiving". In that case opponent before doing anything should do some reckon, check what to expect, read cards, ask etc. If he is not doing it that means he doesn't care about his crew and game and should be rightfully punished with defeat so next time he would not make the same mistake. 

[dancater]

Do you mean forget to Activate it? All applicable models must activate for the Activation Phase to end, it's clearly not optional (p 35) for models to activate. So proceeding to the End Phase when you know there are models waiting to activate would be cheating. 

 

No I mean if you had a mini at the back (which you had or were planning to activate at some point) and your opponent appeared to be moving mini's which could approach them or be threatened by them in a fashion that made you think they had forgotten the figure was their/not their own or whatever. (I think we've all seen this happen to a degree, on one occasion I actually activated moved and charged an opponents minihonestly thinking given where it was it was mine and then realised I did not have a card to look at attack values, we both missed it completely. Also the figure both sides forgot in the distant corner of the field for a turn or two is not a uncommon occurence, it just sits and gathers dust as distracted players move other stuff in tense games which establish we have the attention span of demented budgies.)

 

I have intentionally avoided activating mini's until the last possible activation not because that is advantageous in itself but because I think my opponent is so focussed on the "centre of conflict" that they have missed the critical strategy runner and they will get left alone by the critical figures as they get involved elsewhere. This I think is absolutely fair, I don't complian when it happens to me (this is another great check method, if it happened to you how would you feel? Stupid (means its likely fair) or Cheated (means its likely not cool)).

[dancater]

Again I think a large part of this depends on two factors (which are usually linked), the experience of your opponent and the type of game.

 

In a tournament game against (what I expect) is a reasonably experienced opponent then I wait till I'm asked questions but will be honest if asked concerning what models I have, what skills they possess and what upgrades (open) they possess. I will not volunteer information they don't ask for nor correct what I suspect are assumptions on their part on what my models can achieve. Nor would I explain how a specific model or chain of models could activate and achieve task "x" even if they did ask, I'd explain this model has these powers and this one those but not how with a certain strat and combination of cards it could mean this.... Also I would not explain I expect to have VP's from this, that and the other in a given turn, the Strats and Schemes which are open are open, I'd explain the conditions but it is the opponents task to calculate what I'll do and what this implies for the VP's. Here fair>compete>fun

 

In a casual game, in particular against a opponent I know is not taking it seriously but just as fun and even more so against a real beginner (to the game ++, to a new crew less so) I'd go out of my way to be more helpful. I would explain more things if asked, maybe explain VP conditions or real dirty smash strats which can happen if asked. With a real rookie learner I might even specifically interrupt/offer information unasked (this depends on my reading of the personality of the player, ie would they get insulted at being patronised). In this case fair>fun>compete

 

Where fair = not cheating but allows playing hard, where compete = playing specifically to win and where fun = I want all parties to really just enjoy the experience and win or loss its about laughs and anecdotes. I expect to have all three always (and in my experience I do) but there is a priority pattern I guess (I certainly enjoy close tournament games but winning is important, if I get tabled in a touney I'd be dissatisfied in principle).

[Flint]

If i play i expect my opponent will do his best to win, not showing mercy or holding himself back because of my lack of experience or something. That would mean he respects me as an opponent and my win, if happen, will mean something for me, some kind of achievement which is greater if rival is unforgiving.

[vulky]

Tournament or serious play:

 

Sybelle 5 out of 9 Wd.

 

A- Sybelle is Terrifying right?

B- Terrifying (All) 12

A- Could I kill her with this melee model if I do this and that?

B- You can try... (Hand is crap, he's guaranteed to kill her) BUT, she's also Hard to Wound, has Df6 and can use stones.

A- Yeah...

B- (Hold 1 1 1 1 2 2 cards in front of you, look at Sybelle's attacks in her card, as if you are assuming he charges, you suvive and then retaliate)

A- No I think I'll do something else.

 

And then you score full VP for protecting Sybelle at more than half Wd near the enemies zone. (Bodyguard scheme i think)

 

This is good deception, you GIVE him extra information which is already free access information, in order to have him do what you want.

 

 

Same situation:

 

A- Sybelle is Terrifying right?

B- Terrifying (All) 12

A- Could I kill her with this melee model if I do this and that?

B- Sure thing! Actually I'd recomend attacking and cheating fate with a good card to guarantee one hit more, because I am indeed trying to accomplish Bodyguard and my hand is shit! This would efectively win you the game as well!

A- Lol ok, gg wp.

 

Not recommended.

 

 

 

Friendly play:

 

A- Sybelle is Terrifying right?

B- Terrifying (All) 12

A- Could I kill her with this melee model if I do this and that?

B- SHE'S DEAD ALREADY, FUCK MY LUCK AND YOUR OP MASTER (Throw hand at face) (100% effective in mirror matchup).

 

Eat pizza.

[SpiralngCadavr]

I, um, don't think anyone is advocating full disclosure of information your opponent shouldn't have access to.

 

#1 would be fine regardless of environment, and is giving info I wouldn't consider the bare minimum. More than adequate.

 

#2, I'd either think my opponent was a poor loser and being snarky about it, or messing with me.

 

#3, I'd avoid someone for freaking out like that, and certainly wouldn't go out to pizza.

[Bengt]

Also the figure both sides forgot in the distant corner of the field for a turn or two is not a uncommon occurence, it just sits and gathers dust as distracted players move other stuff in tense games which establish we have the attention span of demented budgies.)

If this happens to you a lot I recommend tilting activated cards or something similar as it's much easier track your cards than models nestled in terrain.

[jonahmaul]

 

fair>compete>fun

 

fair>fun>compete

There's no distinction to me.  I like to be competitive in all my games (the object is to win after all) and want my competitive/tournament games to be fun (because winning is not the be all and end all, it is a game)

 

Tournament or serious play:

 

Sybelle 5 out of 9 Wd.

 

A- Sybelle is Terrifying right?

B- Terrifying (All) 12

A- Could I kill her with this melee model if I do this and that?

B- You can try... (Hand is crap, he's guaranteed to kill her) BUT, she's also Hard to Wound, has Df6 and can use stones.

A- Yeah...

B- (Hold 1 1 1 1 2 2 cards in front of you, look at Sybelle's attacks in her card, as if you are assuming he charges, you suvive and then retaliate)

A- No I think I'll do something else.

 

And then you score full VP for protecting Sybelle at more than half Wd near the enemies zone. (Bodyguard scheme i think)

 

This is good deception, you GIVE him extra information which is already free access information, in order to have him do what you want.

I don't think this is a tournament move, this is just playing the game.  And seems to be confusing the deception issue.  Deception is deliberately witholding information that you should be providing (like HtK, HtW etc.) or trying to encourage your opponents to do things that are going to be harmful to them and which they may not have considered doing otherwise.  What you've described isn't 'good deception' (because you've offered everything that you should), it is bluffing which is completely different because it is an encouraged part of the game.

[Kogan Style]

There's no distinction to me.  I like to be competitive in all my games (the object is to win after all) and want my competitive/tournament games to be fun (because winning is not the be all and end all, it is a game)

 

 Deception is deliberately witholding information that you should be providing (like HtK, HtW etc.) or trying to encourage your opponents to do things that are going to be harmful to them and which they may not have considered doing otherwise

 

I agree with you on the first point, I want to win but I want to enjoy the game too, after all I could be spending my time with other things, life is always busy so when I get the opportunity to push toys round with fellow gamers I want to have fun doing it.

 

Your second point however confuses the deception issue I feel. What is described there is lying/Deception of Fact (from earlier posts) - if someone asks "Does she HtW?" and you don't provide that info.

 

I think in the example above it should be made clear at the start that Sybelle was the bodyguard target and that the intent of the player is to ensure she survives the round. The problem with the example is that to score full points, the player would have already announced that Sybelle was the target of BG.

 

Then you can see that the deception is one of OVER-stating her defensive abilities in order to make the opponent think twice about attacking. The fact the opponent did not check the wnds remaining or remember that Sybelle was the bodyguard is their own fault. 

[jonahmaul]

I agree with you on the first point, I want to win but I want to enjoy the game too, after all I could be spending my time with other things, life is always busy so when I get the opportunity to push toys round with fellow gamers I want to have fun doing it.

 

Your second point however confuses the deception issue I feel. What is described there is lying/Deception of Fact (from earlier posts) - if someone asks "Does she HtW?" and you don't provide that info.

 

I think in the example above it should be made clear at the start that Sybelle was the bodyguard target and that the intent of the player is to ensure she survives the round. The problem with the example is that to score full points, the player would have already announced that Sybelle was the target of BG.

 

Then you can see that the deception is one of OVER-stating her defensive abilities in order to make the opponent think twice about attacking. The fact the opponent did not check the wnds remaining or remember that Sybelle was the bodyguard is their own fault. 

On your first point I hope that we get to play at HBD then!

 

Regarding Sybelle and Bodyguard though - you don't reveal Bodyguard until the end of the fourth turn so it may not even be known information at this point.  After the fourth turn (if you reveal it then - you don't have to) it becomes public knowledge at which point you can't decieve about it.  I think the conversation has perhaps veered off to a more general discussion of Deception when the thread was a response to a specific article in Wyrd Chronicles which encourages (albeit with teh caveat that this might sour players towards you) deliberately witholding information on things like Defences or Triggers or trying to get your opponent to do moves that end up to your advantage (either by moving them closer to you so you can attack them, moving them away from an area where you want to drop a scheme marker etc. etc.).  If you OVER-state her defensive abilities I think that you are not being deceptive, you are just flat out lying!  You can only read what she has (HtW, X wounds remaining, no defensive triggers, ability to use SS).

[Myyrä]

It feels like Jonahmaul has redefined deception to mean actions that he does not approve.

Deception

An instance of actions and/or schemes fabricated to mislead and/or delude someone into errantly believing a lie or inaccuracy.

(Also overstating also carries the meaning of overemphasizing, which was what Kogan Style was talking about.)

[mythicFOX]

Malifaux is a complex game and it’s not possible for everyone to know every model in detail.  That said the onus is on each of us to gather the information we need to make informed play decisions. I don’t expect an opponent to tell me how to beat them.

 

Communication is the key here.  Asking questions of your opponent in the right way is a skill worth developing if you want to play the game well, eg asking; “What should I be aware of when attacking model X?” instead of “What’s model X’s Df and Wd?”

 

Part of this is also anticipating inherent dangers to your crew and this game situation.  So as a construct heavy Arcanist at the start of a game involving a lot a scheme markers I may ask;

 

Do you have anything that ignores armor?

Do you have anything that removes scheme markers?

Do you have any condition removal?

 

This is easily covered off quickly when you announce crews to one another and can avoid you getting into a bad place.

 

Learn to ask the right questions. It’ll save you a lot of pain in the long run.

[jonahmaul]

It feels like Jonahmaul has redefined deception to mean actions that he does not approve.

Deception

An instance of actions and/or schemes fabricated to mislead and/or delude someone into errantly believing a lie or inaccuracy.

(Also overstating also carries the meaning of overemphasizing, which was what Kogan Style was talking about.)

I've not redefined deception to mean anything.  I am discussing the specific instances of deception called out in the article that generated this thread.

[moxypoo]

 

Learn to ask the right questions. It’ll save you a lot of pain in the long run.

Quoted for truth. In my experience, the best players ask the best questions to determine exactly the information they need at that moment.

 

 If you OVER-state her defensive abilities I think that you are not being deceptive, you are just flat out lying!  You can only read what she has (HtW, X wounds remaining, no defensive triggers, ability to use SS).

Sort of.  If you say that a metal gamin has Hard to Wound +2 then you're lying, and that's bad.  But consider this: your opponent asks "how tough is that Metal Gamin?"  Obviously a bad question.

 

Option 1:  Eh, not that tough.  It does have Hard to Kill and Armor +1, but it's got a low Df and only 4 Wds.  You could probably take it out pretty easily.  Shouldn't even take that many attacks.

 

Option 2:  Dude, it's super tough!  It has Hard to Kill, Armor +1, and 4 Wds!  It's Df is even pretty good!  It'll probably take a concentrated effort to bring it down.

 

Both responses give your opponent all the necessary information, but the tone is completely different.  This is the sort of deception that is perfectly fine in tabletop gaming in my opinion. 

 

 

This I can't get behind.  Your opponent ask you a very direct question with a numerical value for the answer and all of the information is something he's entitled to.  It's like asking how many wounds a model has left and responding with "Figure it out".  I could waste both of our time figuring it out, or you could just tell me.  I've already asked the question, the deception is over unless I can't do math.  Continuing playing charades with your opponent is just wasting time.

 

Now if Protect Territory was unrevealed, then my answer would be "So far X for the strat plus unrevealed schemes".  That's kind of the point of revealing a scheme, it's not a secret anymore, but you get more VPs.

I draw a distinction between “information” and “board analysis.”  Things like models’ stats and abilities fall under “information,” which I would be happy to provide upon request.  If the requested information is extensive, I just hand over the card.

 

Things like the VP example I used fall under “board analysis” in my book.  In this case, if the information is right on the board staring you in the face (as you mentioned), then it’s easy to do your own analysis.  I lump this in with things like asking, “how far apart are those models?”  If you ask a question that you can easily figure out the answer to, then you shouldn’t expect your opponent to answer.  Stuff like this tends to slow the game way down.  It's like someone asking "If i move here, can you take my piece?" when playing chess.  The information is all there for you to figure it out; why do I need to do it for you?  It's not that I'm trying to deceive them - it's more that I want to concentrate on my next move instead of playing the game for them.

 

Incidentally, my group places dice with the number of Wds remaining next to a model so that information is obvious.  Makes things go a lot faster. 

 

Now, I only advocate things like this in a competitive setting.  During friendly games, especially with new players, I’ll help my opponents out as much as they need, but eventually I would expect them to start doing their own board analysis.