Bluffing vs Cheating - A hazy line

[bertmac]

Playing to make out you are attempting something and actually saying you are attempting something are two different things. I thinks it's a step beyond being a bluff and whilst not quite cheating wouldn't sit well with me.

[solkan]

Actually, after double checking the Gaining Grounds document...

From the Public Information section:

Quote

All information is considered public unless noted otherwise in the rulebook (such as a player's hand, deck, hidden schemes, etc) and must be presented to an opponent to read if they ask. All stat cards, upgrade cards, and information which is tracked (such as damage and conditions) are public knowledge. You must present any stat or upgrade cards to your opponent when asked (except face down upgrades - see below).

Quote

Players must answer all questions about their Crew fully and honestly. It is against the rules to attempt to obfuscate or conceal your Crew's capabilities from your opponent.

A:  "I have convict labour."

B:  "Really?  Show me."

A:  "No, I don't want to."

B:  "Judge!  A is refusing to answer a question about his crew, after stating the information publicly."

Judge:  "Please explain why you made a statement about your crew's state without being willing to demonstrate the fact."

 

Don't make false claims during the game.

[valhallan42nd]

/Measures in meaningful way in opponent's activation

"Do you have convict labor?"

"What do you think?"

The above is valid, but a pokerface is better.

[Guy in Suit]

Asking is just as obnoxious as falsely telling.

"Do you have X scheme?"

Why would anyone answer that question?

[SpiralngCadavr]

23 minutes ago, valhallan42nd said:

/Measures in meaningful way in opponent's activation

"Do you have convict labor?"

"What do you think?"

The above is valid, but a pokerface is better.

Yeah, I do this all the time. I'll definitely mask what I'm actually measuring by measuring other things as well, takes a few seconds so doesn't really slow things down. If my opponent actually asks me, of course I won't tell them.

[Fantasyfreak]

I'd call what Ukrocky did the ultimate bluff.

The way we play at our local, bluffing is part of the game.  Leading your opponent to think you have one scheme (whilst hidden of course) and then busting out another when scoring is good practice if you ask me and can be done in a number of ways, subtle or not.  Some of the best games of Malifaux i've had have been bluffing or being bluffed on what schemes have been taken. 

I'll outright say that i've never heard or seen anyone bluffing to the extent of saying they have one scheme and mathing out the score from it but it's ok I guess.  I usually make up my own mind what people have taken anyway and think myself as a good reader of people so i'd probably have deduced that it wasn't the case, but if I was fooled i'd laugh and it'd be a funny story to tell.

I think bluffing (at least verbally) works best when two people know each other well and there is a certain banter going on.  If people know each other well I find these are the times when they dicuss the possibilities and start mathing games out anyway.  If there was no such duologue I don't think it would be appropriate to go to this style of bluff as it may leave a sour taste in the mouth.  Certainly wouldn't be a good thing to do to someone inexperienced.

[CapnBloodbeard]

12 hours ago, ukrocky said:

 

"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?

 

 

The first?  Not cheating, but it's borderline dirty

The second?  Definitely cheating

The third?  Not cheating but dodgy and poor sportsmanship

The fourth? As above, but worse

The fifth?  Definitely cheating.

 

The word 'cheating' could be replaced by 'unethical' or 'lying' or some such.  In either case, I'd argue it's definitely not on.  

It's probably worth mentioning that in my state, sportsmanship is paramount.  Even at tournaments players often freely offer to let me 'take back' a mistake if I happen to mention I forgot to do something.  So maybe that affects my decisions.

Verbally lying to deceive your opponent is quite different to dropping unnecessary scheme markers to bluff.  The latter is part of the game - even the way you use your hand is part of bluffing - but the former crosses a line.  I'm not convinced it's against the letter of the rules, but I think it's unethical and against the spirit of the game.  I'd think it's a total d*** move if my opponent did that.  I wouldn't try to get the TO involved - like I said, I don't think it's against the written rules.

[zeeblee]

I just did some reading on poker rules to get some good context for a very serious card bluffing game, and the rules state that you aren't allowed to make explicit statements about your hand (truth or lie).  However, the reason for this in poker is completely different from most Malifaux scenarios.  In poker this is to prevent collusion with other players at the table, but in Malifaux there are primarily only ever two players in direct opposition.  In this way you can't provide tips to another person at the table that might allow them to play a better game than they could otherwise, and thus the spirit of the poker law doesn't apply to Malifaux.

This may seem like a tangent thought to bring up, but I believe this is an important consideration since poker is often viewed as the biggest bluffing game around.  As such following poker rules would say lying about your scheme is cheating, but the game played here does not suffer the same problematic situation that created that rule, and as such I can see how it could be considered legal to lie about your scheme in a game of Malifaux.

Whether or not it's sportsmanlike is a completely separate discussion.

[Tawg]

55 minutes ago, zeeblee said:

I just did some reading on poker rules to get some good context for a very serious card bluffing game, and the rules state that you aren't allowed to make explicit statements about your hand (truth or lie).  However, the reason for this in poker is completely different from most Malifaux scenarios.  In poker this is to prevent collusion with other players at the table, but in Malifaux there are primarily only ever two players in direct opposition.  In this way you can't provide tips to another person at the table that might allow them to play a better game than they could otherwise, and thus the spirit of the poker law doesn't apply to Malifaux.

This may seem like a tangent thought to bring up, but I believe this is an important consideration since poker is often viewed as the biggest bluffing game around.  As such following poker rules would say lying about your scheme is cheating, but the game played here does not suffer the same problematic situation that created that rule, and as such I can see how it could be considered legal to lie about your scheme in a game of Malifaux.

Whether or not it's sportsmanlike is a completely separate discussion.

I agree.

 

 

 

I guess I can elaborate.  But considering that it's head on head, there is very little to evaluate of your opponent's words.  Their actions should spell out the scenario for you as fully as it can.  If they want to suggest that they took Murder Protege targeting one of your two highest costed units, they have not changed the game at all for you.  The announcement of such information, which can neither be confirmed nor denied leaves you exactly in the same position you were in previously.  Only by their actions, such as avoiding potentially advantageous charges to get closer to killing a certain model, or making an easy target of a "sucker" to remain open to a Henchman // Master, can really let you know.

And then there are tells, which all people have, and after playing someone a few times you can probably begin to pick up on.  Especially with drawing Control Hand, since it's the most frequent hidden event to occur, you can more quickly learn if a player is prone to groaning at a bad hand or getting too excited for a good one.  Or if they simply have a good poker face.

But that rule from Poker is amazing, and god I wish people would play by it when playing "secret" information games like Battlestar Galactica (Or any number of other games which require hiding your allegiance).  It gulls me to no end when people say the most overt things ever and are like "I had no idea I was giving away information, or gaming the system".  Ghurururrghghhh!

[Tawg]

10 hours ago, solkan said:

Quote

Players must answer all questions about their Crew fully and honestly. It is against the rules to attempt to obfuscate or conceal your Crew's capabilities from your opponent.

 

Don't make false claims during the game.

In what way is stating any Scheme a deceleration of your Crew's Capabilities?  If you want to say "It's the only way your Crew can score VP, thus it's important to the capability of the crew" then you're pigeonholing yourself into never lying about if you have a Scheme or not.  If it's hidden, they don't know.

You can clearly state "Yes, my master Tara can activate twice in one turn, and can easily place Scheme Markers for Scheme X."  That's a capability of your crew.  Saying "I picked Scheme X" changes nothing about your crew, or their abilities.

Discussing sad choices you made while playing the game, such as "I really shouldn't have picked this Scheme Y, I didn't realize how hard it was to get past your guys to your deployment zone." is something I would very willfully do, because I often discuss the game even during, to help myself and opponent learn from our collective mistakes.

Granted I would never make that same statement, eluding to the fact that I have Entourage, while having two other schemes so my opponent will let their guard down or something.  But I don't think lying to people's faces will have an impact on actions.

 

If I draw a Control Hand every turn, and always say "I only drew kings."  Will you stop trying to take actions against me?  If you subsequently find out, that I did in fact have 4 Kings to cheat in, making a number of your risky moves utterly wasted, would I have cheated?  Do you think you'd alter how you're playing around my declaration?

I certainly wouldn't consider that cheating.  You're either going to be attempting actions, knowing I have cards in hand, or you're going to shy away because you're afraid of losing certain duels.  But taking risks is taking risks, whether or not you've been told the risk is high or it's a lie.

[katadder]

i am really enjoying the new schemes and have been bluffed successfully with them (opponent was measuring to the centreline and dropping schemes) but I was fine with that and amused when he actually revealed something else.

until you score points saying you have convict labour is upto the opponent to believe or not, wouldnt call it cheating. it would be like saying I really need to kill "specific model" before he does me serious harm etc trying to force your opponents activation.

maybe its not nice, but bluffs, counter bluffs, its all down to your belief in what your opponent says.

after all they cannot actually score off convict labour no matter how many times they say they have it if they dont have it

[Guy in Suit]

But the meaningless chatter is a waste of my time, and wasting time is definitely unsporting. 

[Ravnak]

I don't personally see what the fuss is here.

Noone has an issue with people dropping schemes tokens they don't need. Noone has an issue with someone acting like they're trying to deliver a letter, or assassinate when they don't have the ability to.

How does it suddenly transcend when someone throws in spoken words?

Saying its cheating to imply that you have a scheme, aurally, rather than via actions, seems like splitting hairs to me.

 

It is the opinion of some people in this thread, that to place a token on the table is fine, but to place it and say "Theres my token for [scheme x]" makes me a filthy cheat you'd never play again?  It seems a rather drastic step.

I think the important question in all of this is: why are you believing your opponent? I wouldn't. And I wouldn't expect them to believe me if I said something either.

[GrengisKhan]

I personally think a line has been crossed as soon as you say something along the lines of 'I need turn 5 to score Convict Labour' 

To me that would be the same as declaring the scheme 'Convict Labour.' It's not quite cheating, rules as written. However as an example, if we had agreed to end the game there on the basis you can't score more Convict Labour points and then you scored points in another way to win the game, I would consider it very poor sportsmanship. 

I'm fine with people putting down errant scheme markers or positioning to fake Inspection etc. as long as things are kept ambiguous. I don't want my opponents to outright lie to me.  Behaviour like that is going to make playing this game an awkward experience for everyone involved. 

Greg 

 

[dropdeadcriminal]

Leading statements (might, may, could, etc...) would fall into bluffing. You are not declaring anything, you are attempting to lead someone to a conclusion with incomplete information. At no point is there a lie, everything stated contains the possibility of truth. 

Lying is not bluffing. Saying you have something you do not or do not have something you do would not be a bluff. Just like in poker you may sigh when you see your card to imply a bad hand you would not say "I have a 4, 5, 7, J, K" if you did not.

I would consider lying cheating.  

[SuperFly TNT]

While I think lying about your concealed schemes is unsporting, I'm going to do some victim-blaming here.

Despite what an opponent says, until the Scheme is revealed don't believe anything they say. 

[solkan]

To be honest, anyone who says "I might have such-and-such" should be met with the response, "Yeah, I know, I was here playing the game when we flipped for schemes and strategies."

So saying "I might have _____" isn't bluffing because it's stating the obvious.

Stating "I have _____", if the information is private, is divulging that information, and waiving your right to keep it secret.

[Rob Lo]

Every meta is going to come to some agreement about what is acceptable and fun for them, either stated or implied, or it's never going to last long enough to become a meta. Some people actively pursue the bluffing and faking-out element to a high degree, and some find no favor in it. In a friendly match, hopefully you know the level that is acceptable for your gang of misfits. It's common for my group to have mid game small discussions to the effect of "If I'm going for scheme X, you've just royally screwed up my plan.", or "Neutralize the leader is in the pool, prepare for your master to die!" while deploying (doesn't at all mean I took it, or am declaring it).   

 

If it's someone you don't know but a friendly game, you should treat it tentatively as a tournament setting. And in any tournament setting, if you make judgement calls based on anything other than your opponent saying "I'm declaring scheme X based on this marker, this marker, and this marker" at the end of a turn, the mistake is on you. Completely understandable that someone might make that mistake, we tend to revert back to friendly-mode when having a good game, and justifiable that you'd mark that guy as someone to avoid in the future.

[Bengt]

43 minutes ago, solkan said:

Stating "I have _____", if the information is private, is divulging that information, and waiving your right to keep it secret.

But are you really allowed to explicitly reveal a scheme before the conditions for revealing are met? The rules are generally permissive and the only rules we have are "it's secret from the start" and "when X happens score and reveal it".

[CapnBloodbeard]

8 hours ago, Ravnak said:

I don't personally see what the fuss is here.

Noone has an issue with people dropping schemes tokens they don't need. Noone has an issue with someone acting like they're trying to deliver a letter, or assassinate when they don't have the ability to.

How does it suddenly transcend when someone throws in spoken words?

Because bluffing by actions, your opponent is allowed to draw their own inferences.  Actually stating it is a whole other level and is directly providing a false conclusion.

 

If nothing else, this thread has highlighted the possibility that your opponent may be lying if this sort of situation comes up...

[Durza]

So long as you aren't marking down vp for a scheme you didn't take I don't think telling your opponent "I have x scheme" is cheating.

[Tawg]

10 hours ago, solkan said:

To be honest, anyone who says "I might have such-and-such" should be met with the response, "Yeah, I know, I was here playing the game when we flipped for schemes and strategies."

So saying "I might have _____" isn't bluffing because it's stating the obvious.

Stating "I have _____", if the information is private, is divulging that information, and waiving your right to keep it secret.

I don't think you can (Or should) stop someone from stating something like that.

The difference between stating it and declaring it is fairly clear, and simply saying I have Convict Labor does not change a game's course.  If I note Convict Labor down at the beginning of the game, and by the end of the game I never claim to have had it or try to declare a difference scheme I was able to pull off?  That is what I would consider cheating.  And the rules are very clear on what happens when you are unable to provide proper documentation of what your Schemes were when chosen at the beginning of the match.

If I say I have Convict Labor and have made no effort to do anything related to Scheme Markers, what has changed in the game?  Are you going to move a Master into a compromising position based on that bluff // lie?  Are you going to move your Master into the same compromising position when you know the Neutralize scheme was in the pool?

To allow your opponent to make your plays for you, by their words alone (Regardless of the situation of the board state) is one's own fault.  If the opponent was presenting signals of trying to achieve Convict Labor, by placing Scheme Markers near the center line, but the Plant Explosives Scheme is also in the pool, who's fault is it if you move to deny them Convict Labor (Before it is revealed).  In what way does them making false statements change the game state before it's revealed?  You'd still have the same risk-issue between it being a trap and being VP for them.  Once Convict Labor is revealed however, you can be certain how to proceed.

Bluffing would be any falsity that does not directly alter the game play.  If you state that your Lilith has Df 3, that is a lie.  If the opponent tries to hit her and you have a way higher total than they can get after having influenced them with that information, you've cheated.  Mistakes happen, and as long as a mistake can be undone it ought to be (Allow them to re-declare their Activation, thought cards flipped for an erroneous duel can hardly be put back).

 

I mean, if I tell you that Schrodinger's Cat is dead, have I lied to you?  If you were only looking to open boxes with dead cats in them, and you know everything I know about Schrodinger's Cat, would me saying that it is dead change anything?  If it influences your choice to open the box and find a living cat, to your disappointment, can you blame me?

Realistically though, I don't think you're not listening to this argument.  And I can't really say more to elaborate.  I don't think we're really arguing points.  I think we are disagreeing on basic principal.  And in the end, this is an opinion based subject that will be determined by each player, in each environment and with each opponent.  The most important of which will be your TO, as they will have the last say on if you have been abusive of sportsmanship or potentially cheating.

As for:

10 hours ago, dropdeadcriminal said:

Leading statements (might, may, could, etc...) would fall into bluffing. You are not declaring anything, you are attempting to lead someone to a conclusion with incomplete information. At no point is there a lie, everything stated contains the possibility of truth. 

Lying is not bluffing. Saying you have something you do not or do not have something you do would not be a bluff. Just like in poker you may sigh when you see your card to imply a bad hand you would not say "I have a 4, 5, 7, J, K" if you did not.

I would consider lying cheating.

I hardly find it logical to permit all cases of "lying" on the premise of including the a "maybe" word.  If I started a turn and said "I have all my kings in hand", have I lied?  That's a very unlikely truth, and it is entirely possible that it is a lie.  But if I start every turn and say "I might be holding four kings."  You would be completely ok with that same lie?

What's worse, when it ends up being a truth, and you blame the opponent for playing mind games?

 

You shouldn't make a declaration that "all lies are alright if you include the maybe".  That's just opening up a can of worms upside down.  What has to be considered is the intention behind the statements, falsehood or not.  If I say I have all my kings, and am lying, I could just be being silly.

Consider:

"Ohhhman, good luck this turn, I've got all my kings just waiting to thwart all your plans."  I am not changing any game state, and in gentle jest, am hardly harming the game.

if instead I said something like:

"Oh, good thing I drew all my kings and the RJ.  I really left my master out in the open accidentally, but now your attacks won't matter."  It may be that the intention is to completely dissuade an opponent from using any Activations to attack my master.  I would personally consider this harmless, because hidden information is still hidden (You can not be certain of a players hand, despite statements otherwise), and if you know the course of action you want to follow you're making those choices with all the same risks, whether or not someone reminds you they exist.  And if someone did have their full Kings + RJ hand, then you would never have known until after they go, the best you can hope for is to draw out their good cards in less worthwhile duels, but that's the same as normal.  The real harm in this statement comes from players who are willing to concede to simple bluffs, or alter their plans accordingly.  In a case where a player knowingly attempts to alter another player's actions to impose a handicap on them, this is true harm to the game.

But in the end, the issue relies on individuals.

If someone made the Convict Labor lie, and instructed their opponent on how to best move 3 models within 3" of their Scheme Markers, then revealed Plant Explosives, that is malicious intent.  If someone "lies" or "bluffs" about it, and you want to take the risk, it's all yours.  Maybe only moving 1 model into range is a better option when Plant Explosives is possible.  But that's a situation that is determined by known facts, such as Scheme Pool and the knowledge derived by your opponent's prior Activations during the game.

 

Point of the story is, this is not a binary situation.  And while I find far less offense in it, I think you would be hard pressed to irrefutably prove the harm caused by such false declarations.  Yes, they may harm a player (e.g. force them into a bad position, or lose them VP, potentially the game), but it can not be claimed on the back of the statement itself because it, very literally, does not change the game's state.  At least not until you choose to believe and alter your actions.

[dropdeadcriminal]

I guess this is really up to the personality of the player. I personally play for fun, and would find someone who lies throughout the game to not be a fun opponent. While there seems to be numbers opinions here on whether a guy who does that is cheating, I think most of us would agree he is kind of a dick. 

[Tawg]

1 hour ago, dropdeadcriminal said:

I guess this is really up to the personality of the player. I personally play for fun, and would find someone who lies throughout the game to not be a fun opponent. While there seems to be numbers opinions here on whether a guy who does that is cheating, I think most of us would agree he is kind of a dick. 

I only agree to him being a poor sport if he does so knowing he can manipulate the other player.  Such would be the case with younger players who might not know better, or gullible friends.

If my friends said anything to me while we were playing, I would be completely fine, because I know better than to believe them.

Note, that's in the case of any information being "suggested" that is not being revealed or is not currently public information.  Because a lie and a truth can not be established.  I mean even in game, you couldn't force your opponent to show you their Control Hand if they "lied" about something.  And if you somehow could and they were telling the truth, would it then be ok?

The issue seems to be the illusion that being told something alters the possibilities that existed prior to being told.  Like Solkan said:

18 hours ago, solkan said:

To be honest, anyone who says "I might have such-and-such" should be met with the response, "Yeah, I know, I was here playing the game when we flipped for schemes and strategies."

Of course we all know the possibilities (Assuming we're paying attention).  I would just take it a step further and say that false statements without the "maybe" word are no different.  They are not effecting the game state.  And your choice to take that information and internalize it as truth can not be made to be the other person's fault entirely.

But I understand the sentiment, and I don't actively partake in such "bluffing" typically.  I'm usually too focused on thinking about what I'm doing in the game, or my next move.  But I would more than anything expect this sort of behavior between two familiar persons during a game in which they were both able to play the game smoothly already.  Certainly while learning the game, or new crews even, it can be a bit to focus on such that you don't want or need extraneous information.

[dropdeadcriminal]

You know what they say, "If you cant spot the crazy person on the bus, ..."