What information am I required to provide in declaring attacks?

[BlitzMonkey]

Title says it all.  Specifically, when I declare an action, am I required to tell my opponent if there is a Target Number involved or what the TN is?  I know I don't have to say if I met it until after the cheat fate phase.  For instance, if I am attacking with a CA attacking that has the gun icon with a cast skill of 6, Resist WP, and TN 14, do I just say "Attacking with this ability" or do I say "Attacking with this ability with CA 6, shooting, Resist WP, with a TN".  

[Wellingstone]

I guess I must just exist in a VERY different meta. Where I come from this is just not a big deal. If someone does an attack and then the attack is resolved only to find out the target is immune. Nobody gets butthurt. We just chalk that up as a learning experience and move on with the game. Same with knowing/not knowing/not asking if a TN has been met. If someone cheats when they otherwise would not need to because a TN was not met anyway, that’s your problem. Not your opponent’s. We as a meta have decided that player knowledge is just as important as tabletop tactics. If someone makes a bad decision because they acted on either not enough knowledge or failing to ask questions, everyone in our group just chalks that up as a learning experience. Like activating first close to Candy. If someone did not know you would get paralyzed, too bad, move on, lesson learned. The way we see it allowing take backs and volunteering information the opponent may not be aware of  makes “trap” models a LOT less effective.

Nor does anyone see it as bad sportsmanship, it’s just playing the game.

[Wellingstone]

*edit double post for some reason

Edited December 10, 2015 by Wellingstone

[Adran]

I dunno, games in our meta take around 90 minutes which is at or around typical tournament time. In the described environment. We find that we memorize each other's models when we are surprised by them, rather than being hand-held though what a crew does.

In the past year I have used 240 different malifaux figures. Thats a lot of memorising.

I do check things during the game, and ask questions when I need to, but the game result being decided because one of us didn't ask the right question isn't something I like. I don't guide people through, but them not knowing that the card they cheated in still is below my TN just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't want the win because they made that sort of mistake through complete ignorance of my abilities.  

As I've said I'll happily play against people that do, but I will spend a lot more of my time looking at their cards and asking questions. 

 

 

[Wellingstone]

Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

Once again, does the outcome of an individual game actually matter?

Either way, this entire attitude is totally alien to our group, the fact that it's even a discussion is kind of shocking.

[Wellingstone]

To quote G.I. Joe:

"Knowing is half the battle."

But on a serious note. You really can't hide anything in an open information game. So there is no hiding. There is only failing to know/ask. We subscribe that player knowledge is an important aspect of the game. Of course the person that has memorized more should have an advantage, it only stands to reason.

"I did not know that model did that LOL, looks like I lost. Oh well there's always next game." You lost/won a game that does not matter in any way. Oh well... The focus is on player growth, and I think making mistakes and losing games is way more useful and powerful learning tool than having your opponent explain his crew to you.

And really people feel bad about winning because someone did not know something? Seriously? In a game of zero stakes. That's mind boggling.

[Ludvig]

I think there's a big difference between playing a friend you've known for ages of equal skill and the more random - hey, this guy I've never met walked into the club and hasn't played a game of malifaux for months and possibly never faced the crew I play.

[Ludvig]

 

This discussion reminds me of my least favorite game of Malifaux ever. Adepticon team tournament, round 2, won big our first round. In this game our opponents insist on reading the entire text of their abilities out loud to us Every. Single. Time. Even after we insisted we knew what their models did.

Same game where putting a scheme marker next to a lamp post spawned the question from our opponents.

“Does that lamp post count for plant evidence?” They asked.

“Of course it does, it’s terrain.” Was our response.

“So it’s going to be that kind of game.” Was their response.

 

 

Even being someone who usually let's people retroactively focus if they forgot they were at a negative or similar I don't really get the strong emotions about this. 

It probably has a little to do with the internet debate phenomenon, I've been in rule debates on this very forum that retroactively seemed sort of petty. 

I will say that not allowing takebacks against someone used to it or an indecisive player can lead to some players reacting by being even more indecisive and taking 15 minutes to read every card twice before decidi g what to do so it can bite you in the ass. That tournament experience sounds rough, too much information is just as bad.

[BlitzMonkey]

 

This discussion reminds me of my least favorite game of Malifaux ever. Adepticon team tournament, round 2, won big our first round. In this game our opponents insist on reading the entire text of their abilities out loud to us Every. Single. Time. Even after we insisted we knew what their models did.

Same game where putting a scheme marker next to a lamp post spawned the question from our opponents.

“Does that lamp post count for plant evidence?” They asked.

“Of course it does, it’s terrain.” Was our response.

“So it’s going to be that kind of game.” Was their response.

 

 

This is the other side of the coin.  With that said, I have not had a lot of players do this exactly, so it is a rarity for me.  

[Artiee]

These long discussions are when I wish the thread as sorted by Date by default.   

[BlitzMonkey]

NM, misread.

Edited December 10, 2015 by BlitzMonkey

[Ludvig]

Wow.  From the Gaining Grounds document:

0. Sportsmanship

   Malifaux is designed to be fun for all players. Players are expected to behave civilly and respectfully at all times. When asked, players should provide the information and statistics for models as well as any relevant additional public information. Players must be open and honest about the rules of their models.

Just saying.

Seems to me like the target number of opposed duel would be part of the relevant information when you're resolving a duel.

Yes but the discussion is for before your opponent asks you. I haven't heard anyone say they wouldn't say it if asked directly, they just don't announce they're not hitting their Tn before the defender cheats.

[BlitzMonkey]

Wow.  From the Gaining Grounds document:

0. Sportsmanship

   Malifaux is designed to be fun for all players. Players are expected to behave civilly and respectfully at all times. When asked, players should provide the information and statistics for models as well as any relevant additional public information. Players must be open and honest about the rules of their models.

Just saying.

Seems to me like the target number of opposed duel would be part of the relevant information when you're resolving a duel.

Yes but the discussion is for before your opponent asks you. I haven't heard anyone say they wouldn't say it if asked directly, they just don't announce they're not hitting their Tn before the defender cheats.

I think you are missing my question.  I agree you don't have to announce if you hit it yet.  I am asking if you have to announce that a TN is part of the duel.

[Hateful Darkblack]

The rules do not require informing someone that you haven't met the TN until the Resolve Effects stage. They do require showing the card when asked, and answering any questions about the stat card or rules honestly.

Whether or not you choose to give reminders like this is up to you. In some metas, everyone will do so whenever they can, and will see people who don't as rude. In some metas, nobody volunteers this kind of information, and sees those who do so as inefficient or uncompetitive.

Personally, I prefer to win or lose by deeper tactical questions, rather than checking cards frequently or memorizing a lot of things, so I tend to give reminders and hope my opponent does the same. It's definitely not disadvantageous if both people are doing it.

If my opponent plays a less generous playstyle, I will match suit and start doing the same. It's not my preferred way to play, but I can, and I'll still enjoy the game and be courteous and friendly with my opponent. It's just a little slower because I'll be checking my opponent's cards more often.

[Wellingstone]

It's discussions like this that make wish there was some way to implement a chess clock type timing method. This way folks who want to take the time to read and learn abilities and models can do so on their clock. And folks who have taken the time to memorize don't need to worry about the game slowing down due to their opponent. Then this whole discussion would be moot.

Sadly there is no effective and efficient way to implement a turn timing that I've seen.

[BlitzMonkey]

It's discussions like this that make wish there was some way to implement a chess clock type timing method. This way folks who want to take the time to read and learn abilities and models can do so on their clock. And folks who have taken the time to memorize don't need to worry about the game slowing down due to their opponent. Then this whole discussion would be moot.

Sadly there is no effective and efficient way to implement a turn timing that I've seen.

Except then you would have to determine who was responsible for what and on who's time.  

[Wellingstone]

Yeah that's what I mean. This game is pretty impossible to implement a player controlled timing system that is not prohibitively disruptive. But a man can dream.

"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." 

[Wellingstone]

I dunno, games in our meta take around 90 minutes which is at or around typical tournament time. In the described environment. We find that we memorize each other's models when we are surprised by them, rather than being hand-held though what a crew does.

[Wellingstone]

Is losing or winning a game really that important? I think the learning experience is exponentially more valuable than winning or losing a game that literally does not matter. Mistakes and surprises are powerful and effective learning tools. So you lose a game because you got "gotcha'd"... who cares? What's more important is that you learned something. We've learned to ignore the outcomes of individual games and value what was learned on the journey to the outcome.

The only time I can even imagine an individual game's outcome remotely mattering is at a large con. 

[Wellingstone]

I live in a small city so the chances of someone I don't know walking into the game store are fairly slim. That aside. Sure if it's someone who is new to the game there is value in being more helpful. However with your regular sparring partners. Typically that's 99% of the games I play.

Dem downvotes, some feels up in hur.