Bluffing vs Cheating - A hazy line

[ukrocky]

Morning all,

 

Just following on from a discussion on Twitter it seems that the boundaries between bluffing, which some people believe is an integral part of the game, and cheating, which is flat out not allowed, have shifting boundaries and I just wanted a discussion that wasn't Twitter based around this.

I started the discussion following on from a tournament game at the weekend against a regular tournament attendee (Ie, both competitive players), where I had in reality taken Take Prisoner and Frame for Murder. There was also Convict Labour, Hunting Party and the 15ss Minion one in the pool I think. My opponent had taken hunting party and take prisoner. The strat was interference (table quarters). He knew TT very well with having played them for a long time, and I'm sure he considered me a competent player (back story done!)

I scored frame for murder early and scored the 3VPs for it. We both start scoring for the strategy, and he starts scoring for hunting party. I have a TT brother who drops a scheme marker ont the middle line. Start of turn 3 there's a super important initiative flip, that sees either me bringing Hungering Darkness back at the expense of a Vik, or losing Lynch and a Sniper, and I lose, so I'm now on the back foot.

Now, we've agreed on Twitter that dropping scheme markers when you don't need them is fine. I think we can all agree on that.

The query comes in the next part. 

I then start talking about how I need 2 more scheme markers for convict labour, about how I can score convict labour on Turn 5 maybe to take me to 7VPs, about how I think I might be capped at 7VPs, etc. I was pretty sure he had take prisoner and *hadn't* guessed I had take prisoner. 

The discussion on Twitter has been mixed, with some saying if I'd actually scored VPs for Convict Labour, that would be cheating (obviously), and others saying any form of verbal discussion around Convict Labour could be construed as cheating. But what *are* the boundaries? Some are seeing what I did as fine, others not. My question boils down to the following statements:

 

"I might have convict labour" - Cheating/Not Cheating?

"I have convict labour" - Cheating/Not Cheating?

"I might be capped at 7VPs" - Cheating/Not Cheating?

"I think I'm capped at 7 VPs" - Cheating/Not Cheating?

"I'm capped at 7 VPs" - Cheating/Not Cheating?

 

If some of the above are cheating, which some may well believe so, does that mean that exact phrasing becomes exceptionally important and we all of a sudden are hoping to hear definitives so we can pick up on it and make our opponent concede due to a slip of the tongue? 

Just a discussion...

[Seismic134]

I think it depends what you define as a bluff and what you define as a lie? I think bluffing is completely fine. Placing markers where you dint mean them, sighing as if you have a bad hand. Placing markers especialy is an appropriste bluff because it actually costs you actions to do so, therefore is a tactic on the board.

 Lieing, like 'i think im capped at 7' when you know your not, i think can be classed as cheating

[ukrocky]

So what's the difference between a bluff and a lie?

If I'm playing Poker and draw Pocket Aces and someone asks, "Got a good hand?", I'm probably going to reply with "It's OK, could be better".

[ProximoCoal]

I think in order to be classed as cheating you have to break a rule. I don't think lying breaks a rule.
 

Of course, I think it's not the most friendly actions to take. In the end you will just get a reputation for lying, personally I'm not sure that's worth it.

 

It's almost like saying you are really bad, that you have no idea what you are doing and that you will definitely not get through to day two of the masters. Right Craig

[Seismic134]

True. You arent breaking any rules i suppose.

 

A quick question then. Can you declare a scheme if you dont have it? Obviously you can act like your doing it, but surely if you act where your actually gaining VP, then that could be cheating.

 

Also, why does this type of topic only rear its head in the morning. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!! Let us wake up first

[ProximoCoal]

No you can't actually in game declare it if you don't have it, which means you can't get points from your hidden scheme while you are bluffing another. If you did then you actually are cheating.

[Seismic134]

Just now, ProximoCoal said:

No you can't actually in game declare it if you don't have it, which means you can get points from your hidden scheme while you are bluffing another. If you did then you actually are cheating.

But if in relation is gg16, you only start scoring points once it has been revealed. E.g. cant score a VP in convict labour till its been revealed

 

[ProximoCoal]

1 minute ago, Seismic134 said:

But if in relation is gg16, you only start scoring points once it has been revealed. E.g. cant score a VP in convict labour till its been revealed

 

yep that was just a typo. Hope that makes sense now

[RarerMonsters]

The entire point of concealed schemes is that you can bluff around them. Granted trying to deceive the opponent through bluffing might be out of line, but if it's a competitive game you can discuss whatever you want and your opponent should know better than to take your word for it.

 

Just don't expect people to believe you in the future.

[solkan]

I'm pretty sure the last time this sort of topic came up in an Infinity forum (a game which has a comparable or greater amount of secret information), the consensus was "Please shut up concerning your secret game state information."

If something is a secret, and the other player isn't allowed to know due to game mechanics (because it's a non-revealed scheme or whatever) then talking about it is at best useless noise, and at worst annoying, inconsiderate behavior.

Because the answer to all of the hypotheticals in the original post is "Prove it.  Turn over your piece of paper and show me."  If you're not willing to do that, you're simply being annoying. 

 

[Dogmantra]

Generally I would avoid bluffing verbally in a game unless you're obviously just joking around (e.g. claiming to have taken the same scheme twice, suggesting you have six ones in your hand). In your example, I actually think talking about having convict labour harmed your bluff - the act of dropping a scheme marker was enough in itself and at that point there is still doubt over whether you had it.

Was it cheating? Probably not. I'd call things like lying about your models' rules cheating. But was it necessary for your bluff? Also probably not, and that makes it best to avoid imo.

[ukrocky]

For what it's worth, I'm going to play devils advocate in a lot of this as genuinely intrigued.

 

43 minutes ago, solkan said:

If something is a secret, and the other player isn't allowed to know due to game mechanics (because it's a non-revealed scheme or whatever) then talking about it is at best useless noise, and at worst annoying, inconsiderate behavior.

I massively disagree with this, and I think you could have phrased what is essentially talking about my behaviour a tad more eloquently...! If something is secret then talking around it is far from useless, annoying or inconsiderate. If the opponent wants to ignore, reciprocate or anything inbetween that is their choice, but the fact they are secret means you have to think of all possibilities. That's like saying talking in Poker is inconsiderate and yet still happens. That's like saying sledging in Cricket is inconsiderate and yet still happens. There are plenty of behaviours that some people adopt and others do not in this game, but rarely is it down to being inconsiderate. 

[solkan]

11 minutes ago, ukrocky said:

For what it's worth, I'm going to play devils advocate in a lot of this as genuinely intrigued.

To quote the rules forum rules, "The devil doesn't need an advocate."

Obnoxious behavior is obnoxious behavior and in person, you'll be asked to stop it. 

No one cares why you've decided to start singing an opera about your tragic scheme choices during a tournament. 

[ukrocky]

10 minutes ago, solkan said:

To quote the rules forum rules, "The devil doesn't need an advocate."

Obnoxious behavior is obnoxious behavior and in person, you'll be asked to stop it. 

No one cares why you've decided to start singing an opera about your tragic scheme choices during a tournament. 

It does sometimes, especially when I don't have concrete other examples to rely on.

I'm not an obnoxious person, however I come across, and my behaviour at the event was not obnoxious. 

I apologise that I made a discussion about something malifaux related to get opinions on something that isn't defined. I didn't realise Malifaux Discussion wasn't allowed in the Malifaux Discussion forum. I guess the whole forum should be shut down?

Yes I'm biting back, but I don't appreciate being called obnoxious, inconsiderate and annoying over the medium of a forum. If you wish to discuss me further and my reasons behind my initial post then please drop me a message, and we can discuss it over there, or perhaps over Skype as I accept forums aren't the best medium for civil discussion. If you however wish to discuss the OP in a civil way then please feel free to respond to the OP. 

[Breng77]

Tough question, I don't think it is cheating, but I do think it is poor sportsmanship, there is a difference between being vague and misleading an opponent through bluffing.  Letting an opponent think you have a scheme to me is different than essentially telling him you have it but lying.  Your poker example is a bad one as you are being vague about your hidden cards, it would be equivalent to you putting down the scheme marker and your opponent asking about your scheme and you saying I might have it.  There really isn't a good analog in poker to be honest because telling your opponent what is in your hand is of no advantage.

[Math Mathonwy]

3 hours ago, ukrocky said:

"I might have convict labour" - Cheating/Not Cheating?

Not cheating.

Quote

"I have convict labour" - Cheating/Not Cheating?

Cheating.

Quote

"I might be capped at 7VPs" - Cheating/Not Cheating?

Not cheating.

Quote

"I think I'm capped at 7 VPs" - Cheating/Not Cheating?

Lying but not cheating.

Quote

"I'm capped at 7 VPs" - Cheating/Not Cheating?

Lying but not cheating.

The last two are, I think, ungentlemanly but allowed by the rules. I guess that whether you engage in such behaviour is mainly about how you wish to conduct yourself.

I think that speculating about the maximum points you could get if you had Convict Labor is ok but depending on phrasing it can be obnoxious.

Edit: Oh, and I would posit that the very first one is sortakinda encouraged by the rules. I mean, it's just verbalizing the bluff of dropping a useless Scheme marker. That's part of the point of hidden Schemes, I think.

[Lucidicide]

20 minutes ago, solkan said:

No one cares why you've decided to start singing an opera about your tragic scheme choices during a tournament. 

This feels like an overstatement. If someone started to sing an opera in a game I was playing with them, I would care why. I mean, that's pretty epic.

 

You can't lie about the game. You can't give false information about what's on your card, what turn it is, scoring points, your duel totals, cards in hand, etc. At the point of discussing a secret scheme, talking about how you can score it is borderline at best, as you can't actually score it. If you did it to me in a casual game, I wouldn't call you out for cheating, but I would avoid playing you. If you did it to me in a tournament, I'd roll my eyes but assume you were full of shit all along (as you would never reveal that information competitively).

Taking in-game actions to try to obfuscate your plan is totally cool. Taking completely out of game actions (such as talking about how you're about to score a scheme you don't have or screaming in your opponent's face for as long as it's their activation) is much less cool, and I'd generally recommend that you try to win without it.

[Seismic134]

3 minutes ago, Math Mathonwy said:

Not cheating.

Cheating.

Not cheating.

Lying but not cheating.

Lying but not cheating.

The last two are, I think, ungentlemanly but allowed by the rules. I guess that whether you engage in such behaviour is mainly about how you wish to conduct yourself.

I think that speculating about the maximum points you could get if you had Convict Labor is ok but depending on phrasing it can be obnoxious.

Alas! Someone who actually thinks about what they want to say before talking complete rubbish

[enderwiggin]

My opinion echoes Math's list. Simple etiquette and I would certainly think about ever playing that person casually again.

[Psientologist]

I just assume Craig is always cheating, I mean he wins with Ten Thunders and they're rubbish right?

[ukrocky]

So from reading on this, just two things:

 

- I'd like to clarify I didn't do the majority of what I've asked...!

- Verbal bluffing is considered very poor in all forms.

 

My opponent from that game had no issues, and I just wanted to see where the line was, not that I am an advocate of always playing "on the line" - I don't feel a need to, partly as I like to enjoy my games, and partly because I'm just incredible at Malifaux. 

[lucius101]

First off, I was ukrocky's opponent in the game he's referring to. 

So my view, did he fool me, totally. I didn't suspect for a minute he was running take prisoner on my malifaux childe. That's not nessassarily only because I thought he was running convict but also I'm terrible at thinking what schemes my opponent is running. 

I might be wrong, hazy recollection of a game at least three sleeps ago, but I think with hindsight he actually had 3 scheme markers down a turn earlier and hadn't scored convict. So if I'd actually noticed that and mentioned he scored the turn before and he didn't correct me, that I would feel is cheating. As it was there were discussions on if he could score on turn 5. From memory he never said he had convict only that he thought he couldn't score more than 7 vp so I don't believe in our game any cheating occurred, just some very strong bluffing. 

Specifically lying to your opponent is cheating. "I have convict labour"would be a lie. Omitting information and letting you opponent jump to the wrong conclusion is a different matter. 

There is the issue of volunteering information vs not, which also includes telling an opponent which triggers you've hit on a dual for example. Not doing so repeatedly may earn you a bad rep but I don't think it cheating. 

Would I play ukrocky again, totally. I'd just know to ignore everything the lying little weasel says ?? 

[Guy in Suit]

I found that sort of cross talk about VPs annoying and consider it unsporting, as you are clearly trying to distract your opponent and put them on tilt.

 

Not as bad as telling them how you want to &^%$ their mother, but equally as useless and as unlikely to be true. 

[CanYaDigIT]

I think all of the statements above are not cheating. They may be unsportsmanlike, but are not effecting the game in anyway. If a poker player looks at his hand and says I have a royal straight flush, it may or may not be true. If the opponent is dropping scheme markers for convict labor and states they have it, before it has been revealed, it may or may not be true. 

Should you do it? No, but it isnt cheating either.

[SpiralngCadavr]

If it's subjective or ambiguous (examples 1 & (maybe) 4), that's fine. 4, for purposes of cheating, is something I'd never call someone on since it could be a mistake.

3 is kind of dumb. That's like those sales "everything might be on sale for up to 50% or more!" that just doesn't mean anything, since it covers all possibilities while kind of emphasizing one.

Outright lying or stating as fact something that's incorrect (i.e. 1 & 5), would be.

Malifaux has a ton of information flying around, and it's all public except your hand and hidden schemes. I consider it good form to let people know potential triggers, or at least any currently active triggers, and relevant things to offense/defense, though not deceptive not to tell them. If you're actively providing misinformation, though, in a casual game I'd be irritated and in a competitive one I'd question that as cheating.

If I wanted a game that took encyclopedic knowledge of every piece situation, I'd play MTG or Heroclix or w/e, and if I wanted a game with active lying, I'd play one of those party games like Bang!.