Scouting Opponent Crews

[zeeblee]

The discussion is now reminding me of old Streek Fighter tournaments.  In the US the character Akuma was outright banned because he was known for being overpowered.  In Japan however, he was "soft banned" in that the community frowned upon the practice of utilizing him, and in fact none of the pro players ever did (but still stomped on rookies trying to break the tournament seen via playing Akuma).

 

Similar to that we have players here either calling for a full ban of the behavior or players taking such behavior into account and instead deceiving those who would take a peak by revealing a false crew.

[Dafty]

I think you became the bad guy when you started calling specter an unsportsmanlike idiot cheater. Which I think personal attacks are a mod worthy offense.

Being competitive is not unsportsmanlike. Seeing display boards and talking is not cheating.

Physically digging or poking though someone's collection without prior consent is. I see specterss points. I just don't need prior knowledge to win. Some people need advantages. I don't care enough.

[SpiralngCadavr]

I'd say there's a difference between actively rifling through stuff vs. deceiving someone and looking through their stuff with the same intent, but I find it basically one of the nuance of rudeness vs. deception, while both effectively cheating.

[Ausplosions]

I think you became the bad guy when you started calling specter an unsportsmanlike idiot cheater. Which I think personal attacks are a mod worthy offense.

Being competitive is not unsportsmanlike. Seeing display boards and talking is not cheating.

Physically digging or poking though someone's collection without prior consent is. I see specterss points. I just don't need prior knowledge to win. Some people need advantages. I don't care enough.

It's not an Attack if it's true. It's a statement.

Some people need advantages, is not equal to TAKING AWAY the advantage your opponent has in the form of an un-revealed crew.

That is plain cheating. It makes him a cheat.

[moxypoo]

I'm not saying don't talk. I'm not saying don't mingle or have fun.

What I'm saying is if I find out after the fact you were using that interaction to scam people, you will be ejected.

Sitting in the corner is NOT what we are discussing here.

As for Aaron taking different models to the table. He's not hiding anything. Crew build isn't public knowledge yet anyway. It's a shame he feels he needs to, and probably as a defence against cheats like this.

 

I think one issue is that you're trying to create a subjective, unenforceable policy.  We've established that simple observation is perfectly fine, no problem there.  However, outside of admission, it's impossible to determine whether a person is simply having fun chatting about the hobby or actually trying to gain information about the opponent.  I can understand your attitude (though not the rudeness) towards Specter; he admitted he does something you consider unsportsmanlike-like.  Since they're your tournaments, you have the right to turn away people you don't want to participate.

 

However, if a player chooses to talk about the crew or models they're planning to use, isn't it their own fault that their crew selection isn't secret anymore?  You could always choose to NOT talk about what you're going to use during the tournament if someone asks you.

[Ausplosions]

The difference is that Spectre SPECIFICALLY said he was looking in people's bags.

He's not "just gaining information through conversation". He is actively seeking out people he will be playing and pumping them for information that he shouldn't have till the beginning of the game.

Combined with the creepy bag gazing, that makes him a cheat.

And saying the people talking about their crew to him are at fault?!

Really? I got robbed once. Was that my fault?

[Dafty]

So you have a rule saying no display boards since everyone who looks at it is cheating. Since they are taking away the display boards players un-revealed crew? Ofc not. That player made it public this is what he is doing. If I see Collodi and puppets and bring raspy I am now a cheater? For using the knowledge they are willfully giving away. That is one of specterss points.

[Icemyn]

However, if a player chooses to talk about the crew or models they're planning to use, isn't it their own fault that their crew selection isn't secret anymore?  You could always choose to NOT talk about what you're going to use during the tournament if someone asks you.

True, but do you really want people to blame for being friendly?

 

Isn't it her own fault for wearing that? She could have choosen NOT to walk alone at night.

 

I know I am taking your argument to an extreme, but it really is victim blaming. 

[moxypoo]

And saying the people talking about their crew to him are at fault?!

Really? I got robbed once. Was that my fault?

 

No, I'm saying that if someone starts asking you about the crew or models you're planning to run during the tournament, then you shouldn't tell them if you don't want them to know.  Simple.

 

I've had lots of people (read: potential opponents) try to ask me about my favorite techniques at martial art tournaments, and I didn't tell them.  If I did tell them, it would be entirely my own fault that they had knowledge of techniques that I preferred.

 

@Icemyn.  THere's a huge difference between criminal activity and what we're discussing here.  If someone just wants to chat about the game, that's great!  Have fun talking to them without giving away what crew you're playing - it doesn't take much to subtlety steer the conversation awaty from that topic, and if asked directly, you can always respond with something like, "I'm sorry but I'd rather not discuss what model's I'm planning on using during the tournament."

[Icemyn]

I agree with you Moxy, but that is because I have spent years competitive gaming.

 

I certainly don't reveal any information when I can help it. I also don't want people being driven away from the competitive scene because they are more into sharing the fluff aspects of the hobby. Especially, not by blaming them for being friendly.

[moxypoo]

I agree with you Moxy, but that is because I have spent years competitive gaming.

 

I certainly don't reveal any information when I can help it. I also don't want people being driven away from the competitive scene because they are more into sharing the fluff aspects of the hobby. Especially, not by blaming them for being friendly.

I absolutely wouldn't want people to be driven away from the hobby either!  There are few enough of us as is.

 

This does raise the question: how much benefit does having prior knowledge of your opponent's crew help you?  Malifaux seems to be balanced enough that it's not a huge deal, but I'm sure there are differing opinions out there.

[enderwiggin]

Clearly this discussion shows that the perception or fog of war surrounding an army are important. To skip straight to calling it "victim blaming" is smacking of the pseudo-SJW nonsense that popped up in the Lizzy playtest topic though. If that's the case with some of the people here I'd like to know so that I can bow out before ever getting tangled up in some semantics mess over it.

 

Until then though, I'll take from this topic the warm and fuzzy feeling that Malifaux tournies aren't really all that different than other competitive wargames. People of all types will play under their own self-enforced rules and overall show that there's still a bunch of enjoyment to be had from the hobby across all the normal channels.

[valhallan42nd]

Bluffing happens; feigning weakness when there is strength happens and vice versa. If someone looks over at what I'm pulling out of my bag/off my tray in a tournament, and I notice, she'll be sure to be looking at three different masters, all with very different play styles. She'll have 15 minutes to figure out who I'm playing, for whatever advantage that will give her.

It's no skin off my nose.

[Hateful Darkblack]

Personally, I don't play with a lot of secrets. I usually declare the declarable schemes. Most people who read the forums or the AWP Facebook group or listen to the AWP podcast know what I'm likely to play in tournaments. (Hint: It's Leveticus.)

 

Usually with most local players, I know what Masters they're likely to play because I've played against them before. But every time I've tried to use this knowledge during Crew Creation, I've ended up making dumb decisions. Sometimes I misguess and backfire. Sometimes I overestimate the importance of "counter" models and forget to hire models that can get me VP. Sometimes I just end up playing models I don't know as well.

 

One of the strongest players in my local meta recently played a game against me in a tournament. Knowing that I was playing Leveticus, he played McCabe without any Hounds (since he didn't want Levy to melt his Hounds.) I think it lost him a lot of VP, because McCabe is amazing with his Hounds. The next time we played he brought his Hounds and did much better -- I was barely able to squeak out a victory and he was ahead most of the game.

 

Most of all, though, I'm throwing a lot of confusion onto myself by trying to second-guess. Too much information spoils the Crew hiring, especially under time pressure.

 

(In Vassal, I'll play a wide variety of things, but mostly Gremlins. I have picked Crews specifically to surprise people who I suspected were scouting me there. It didn't work very well -- surprise Crews are less advantageous than solid Crews. Putting all your points into enemy-countering models is less advantageous than putting your points into solid models you know well that synergize.)

 

So, I suspect that too much scouting will actually be less advantageous than it seems, since it can lead to bad hiring decisions.

 

It's definitely wrong to touch peoples' things without asking and to destroy other peoples' property intentionally, of course.

 

Before tournaments, I'll often ask to see peoples' models, without knowing whether I'll be playing against them, because Malifaux models are beautiful and I love looking at what other people have done with them. I assume others will do the same, though my models aren't nearly so gorgeous. I've sometimes had people ask pointed questions that seem more like scouting, and I'll generally try to be respectful about it. "Well, I don't know until I've hired, of course. But I'm declaring Outcasts this tournament." Maybe someday I'll switch up and play Jack Daw or the Viks or something during hiring. I certainly reserve the right to do so. But I suspect it'll be disadvantageous to me -- because playing a solid Crew I know well is worth more than surprising an opponent during hiring.

[Icemyn]

@Moxy: I personally don't think it matters much in malifaux, but it does matter more than in other wargames that mostlyrequire fixed lists.

 

@EnderWiggen: Skipping straight to calling it what it is seems reasonable. I made no attempt to equate the two, which may be your hangup. (Quick aside for curiosity: Would it be fair to say you are a <25 white male? feel free to PM the answer or ignore) 

[enderwiggin]

I don't believe in mislabeling, which is what I feel this was. How quickly people seemed to get offended is why I'm connecting the two, the response chain for the latter tends to follow similar lines and I'd rather not deal with it and offend people for an off-topic subject I have fairly concrete views about already.

 

I'm also not ashamed of my background, but I'm also not going to divulge everything online mind you. For starters I am a middle-aged man but I'm also a minority. If you want more background I grew up in a third world country and some of my earliest memories are that of actual combat (not as a child soldier, just caught in the conflict) and being forced away from my home.

I'm not a stranger to stress or insults my mixed races blood has brought, but I'd just rather not jump into what is currently such a toxic mess on almost every site I seem to visit online any more. People can't even agree what line defines people on the various sides, so for me it's just not worth the effort.

[SpiralngCadavr]

True, but do you really want people to blame for being friendly?

 

Isn't it her own fault for wearing that? She could have choosen NOT to walk alone at night.

 

I know I am taking your argument to an extreme, but it really is victim blaming. 

Exactly where I felt this was going. 100% agreed that, while extreme, the analogy is there. Creating some sort of air of suspicion that blames players for being tricked is not what any tournament scene needs.

[necroon]

Wow that's really too bad. 

 

I used to be able to say "Almost everyone that plays Malifaux is a great person" when asked about the community as a whole (something that is a top priority to most people coming from the stressful (and dare I say poisonous) environment of GW games. 

 

I get that it happens. I get that that's how some people are. I get that it does not matter all that much in Malifaux compared to some other games (there are obviously harder match ups for some than others, however). I just sort of wanted us to be better than the normal (If not just a bit odd). 

 

Consider me thoroughly disgusted with anyone that would try and get this type of edge. If you see me at a tournament and have peeked at what I have with me please just tell me so I can forfeit. I don't want to play you, anyways and you obviously need the win more than I do. 

[moxypoo]

Exactly where I felt this was going. 100% agreed that, while extreme, the analogy is there. Creating some sort of air of suspicion that blames players for being tricked is not what any tournament scene needs.

I know I should just drop it, since "blaming the victim" is such a poisonous (I like that word, need to use it more) topic, but I have to point out that just because an analogy is there doesn't make it a good one.

 

This is an example of reductio ad absurdum.  Also, you're comparing a situation entirely in a person's control to one that is completely (or almost completely) outside their control.  In a tournament setting, it is entirely up to the individual whether he/she wants to give away information pertaining to crew composition during the tournament (outside of someone digging through your bag - something everyone here seems to agree is wrong/cheating).  Whereas, in a case like a robbery the factors leading up to it are almost entirely outside your control.

 

Now, I agree that an air of suspicion is not healthy for a tournament environment, but I highly doubt a few individuals performing pre-game scouting would be severe enough to create this environment.  Additionally, according to Hateful Darkblack (and a few others), it's not even that necessary so it probably won't become widespread.

[Hateful Darkblack]

I guess there's one way that scouting can make a difference.

 

There's a huge advantage to knowing and understanding how an enemy's Crew works. If you have enough advance notice, you can probably help your play a lot by running a practice game against the same Master if you aren't familiar with them. (Or at very least reading up on them on tacticas and discussion groups.)

 

Knowing which Crew you're facing while hiring isn't a big advantage. Being familiar with how your opponent's Crew works (and how to take it apart) is a huge advantage during play.

[The Zinc Lich]

Really, I think that scouting versus non-scouting is sort of a moot point. A person who is planning on seriously playing in a tournament is going to bring a well-rounded box of models to adapt to any situation. Skew lists, like Collette Scheme Marker stall or Ramos Armored Deathball,  are of limited value in Malifaux because sometimes the VP conditions just necessitate a different list. Even if someone knows that you brought Ramos, Metal Gamin, Joss, Johan, and Howard, it is unlikely that, in a 3+ round tournament, that is the *only* crew you brought.

 

I actually really like mutual box scouting. As long as everyone has brought a fairly equal number of models (like in tournaments where you hire from a set pool). Otherwise, it just punishes people who don't have the time/money/space to bring an entire faction to a tournament. I enjoy looking at a pile of minis and trying to figure out what the opponent's strategy is going to be while they are doing the same thing for me. One of the strongest elements of Malifaux as a game, in my opinion, is the fact that crews are made and hired to fit the VP conditions, and making crew choice a more significant and engaging part of the game certainly doesn't take away from my enjoyment.

 

The bigger problem is in casual games, where people aren't necessarily trying to run the best crews they have available. If someone is checking your crew before the game to build the perfect counter-crew, though, you can just flip them off and play with someone else, that is one of the big advantages of playing casual.

[SpiralngCadavr]

In casual play, I more often than not ask my opponents what they're feeling- do they want a competitive game, do they want to try something new, etc. Sometimes that means we both mention which masters we're playing, which I'm completely fine with, as long as it's an agreement rather than something sneaky.

[Icemyn]

Most high level tournaments let you know the strategies and schemes of every round months in advance. (GenCon, Adepticon, etc)

That being the case most people seriously playing in those tournaments have a pretty set list for each round, obviously they can change at anytime.

If bag scouting or other shady tactics become the norm all that has to happen is the TO saying you must submit a list for each round before the tournament and this cannot be changed.

 

I am not in any way advocating that this should be done(now or ever), just pointing out that options exist to combat this sort of chicanery. Other competitive wargames already have this take all comers list approach.

[SpiralngCadavr]

While I've grown away from the WM/Hordes crowd, I really appreciate their dual list system as fixed lists that allows some specialization instead of boring all-comers lists or the potential overwhelming options Malifaux can present with the very late crew options. 

[SpectreEliteGaming]

Holy crap boys and girls... I honestly did not mean for this to get blown this far out of proportion... the original *gasp* "peeks in bag" comment was offhandedly made by myself... emphasis on offhandedly... in a topic that originally had nothing to do with this. Too much drama for me!

*vanishes!!!* ( but you can still feel my disgusting cheaty cheat cheat presence lurking over your bags peeking at your shinies!)

Ausplosions - sigh. You seem like a very difficult person.

Also, you'll never catch me! nah nah nah boo boo.