Schemes and Strategies: a Question of Sportsmanship

[Forar]

In recent months we've seen a number of topics pop up discussing using 'outside the box' approaches to gameplay, such as sacrificing or killing your own master during shared Deliver a Message to handicap your crew while ensuring your opponent gets a max of 4VP.

I had a situation come up just the other night where an opponent had declared a Grudge against my Austringer, and as the battle went on, it did occur to me that I could easily have Lady Justice strike him down ("...ooops.") and remove that as an option. I didn't though I noted it was possible at the time.

So my query to the community is this; where does creative problem solving end and unsportsmanlike conduct begin? Is it enough to have a community understanding (at least for casual gameplay), or is this the kind of thing that perhaps we should look at for a rules update someday? Or perhaps just a middle ground of not enforcing any such changes upon communities, but like seen at the Gencon tournaments? Tweaking the use or availability of some schemes and strategies as needed to promote gameplay, rather than creative use (or some might say, abuse) of game mechanics?

Personally, I am a fan of thinking outside the box, of using tactics that transcend the norm, but with the limits on victory points, I do agree that one side having a potential cap of 8, while the other is hamstrung to a max of 4 or less (depending on the combination in question) crosses that line.

One can in turn point out that it simply becomes part of the meta-game, to not take or announce certain schemes in combination with certain strategies, but I'm not sure that's necessarily a good idea. With an already somewhat limited number of schemes available, simply shrugging and accepting that a portion of them simply aren't usable, or can be easily defeated seems to indicate that either they need revision or a mechanic in place to provide an incentive to not murder your own crew members, or negative reinforcement for those who do so anyway. Between those two I'd lean towards the latter, especially as such a penalty could in turn be abused with certain combinations while facing some masters.

So, thoughts? I'm interested in opinions provided both by more casual and competitive players alike.

[FearLord]

To be honest, I view it as intended - otherwise it would be easy to write the strategies and schemes with this in mind (i.e score full victory points if your opponent removes the necessary model from the game, etc)...

As for balance - this is cover to a certain degree - if you take out your master on turn 1, so I can't deliver the message, you have to play 6 + turns against me without a master - which makes it easier for me to achieve my schemes and prevent you from getting yours and your strategy...

I'm not sure how I feel about it really - its in the rules so I have no problem with people doing it, but I question if it really improves the game to have it in there or not... I can see some masters doing whatever it takes to win, but others not so much - considering the game bills itself as 'Character led' it seems a little weird that 'any thing goes' but there we are...

[Gruesome]

When I have been involved in discussions of scheme/strategy intent before, specifically around grudge, assassinate and deliver a message the replies have basically come down to the simple statement, "They are all functioning as designed and intended and that's how Wyrd plays them themselves."

Now, for some of the strategies, that is unfortunate, IMO, as they can be played in a way that I is beyond my ability to rationalize the models "behaving". I mean, I get that there is a "best" way to approach things from a "these are just playing pieces" perspective, but that's not how I view my models or I would be playing a different game and using wooden blocks.

Its ridiculous to me that a master would let himself get killed to prevent a message being delivered to him or that a grudge is somehow "won" by murdering your own teammate and somehow pretending like you are better off for it.

I would not play that way because thats not what I look for in the game.

That having been said, I do not care if others would as I do not want to try to impose my "standard" on others.

But, I ALSO want the rules to change to get rid of that sort of stuff as I think its silly and then we do not have to worry about how people are playing.

[Subötai]

You also have to consider that this game is an abstract representation. Removed from play does not always equate to killed, but just not further active in the conflict, or else you would get to play with your models just a few times before you had to buy new ones since the "died."

Back to the original point, I take schemes, and play appropriate to the game at hand. In a casual game against a new player, I'll pull out those schemes that no one ever takes to see if I can find a new approach for them. Against a hardened master of Malifaux late in a tourney, I've let Som'er Teeth get eaten by a warpig to get Eat My Fill off, and deny Deliver the Evidence.

[Triblayne]

When I have been involved in discussions of scheme/strategy intent before, specifically around grudge, assassinate and deliver a message the replies have basically come down to the simple statement, "They are all functioning as designed and intended and that's how Wyrd plays them themselves."

Now, for some of the strategies, that is unfortunate, IMO, as they can be played in a way that I is beyond my ability to rationalize the models "behaving". I mean, I get that there is a "best" way to approach things from a "these are just playing pieces" perspective, but that's not how I view my models or I would be playing a different game and using wooden blocks.

Its ridiculous to me that a master would let himself get killed to prevent a message being delivered to him or that a grudge is somehow "won" by murdering your own teammate and somehow pretending like you are better off for it.

I would not play that way because thats not what I look for in the game.

That having been said, I do not care if others would as I do not want to try to impose my "standard" on others.

But, I ALSO want the rules to change to get rid of that sort of stuff as I think its silly and then we do not have to worry about how people are playing.

This echoes my feeling exactly, with the exception that I find it hard to believe that Malifaux, being so story and character driven, was intended to be played in such a way as to justify attacking and killing your own teammates for point advantage.

[tadaka]

Thats the point of announce vs dont announce. Once you get past the mindset that announcing every time is a good idea you will understand its not a problem. If you dont want me to kill off your goal dont tell me hey im going to do whatever to him. When you show your hand you deserve to have it countered. Its a built in balance point in the game. Problem is most people have it in there head that you have to have 8 points every game. Use the i kill my own model trick for all its worth dont announce yours and beat your local play with 6 to 4 games eventualy the meta will change.

[Gruesome]

You cannot "not announce" deliver a message.

And if you have a lot of luck getting 1 point a scheme, more power to you, I guess. Our experiences differ.

[NeuroFire]

I've certainly run across this sort of thing. I had one game where my opponent killed my Grudge target, and my Ronin committed seppuku to deny Kill Protege. I don't really like removing my own models from play, but sometimes it's the best option.

Of course, I've also had an opponent who knew I used Raptors as smart missiles and fodder for Violation of Magic, so he declared Extermination on Beasts knowing I would pretty much do his job for him. I tried not to, but my gameplay would have suffered too much if I hadn't used any of them, and they're easy to take down, so he got what I didn't.

I've also played random scheme games where I had to make my own choice between Assassinate and Steal Relic; getting both just wasn't going to happen because I was running very low on minions. McMourning can kill almost anything that gets close enough to steal a relic, so I abandoned that scheme.

Just all part of the varied tapestry of Malifaux. Getting 8vp is kind of a rarity, really.

[FearLord]

Thats the point of announce vs dont announce. Once you get past the mindset that announcing every time is a good idea you will understand its not a problem. If you dont want me to kill off your goal dont tell me hey im going to do whatever to him. When you show your hand you deserve to have it countered. Its a built in balance point in the game. Problem is most people have it in there head that you have to have 8 points every game. Use the i kill my own model trick for all its worth dont announce yours and beat your local play with 6 to 4 games eventualy the meta will change.

This is good point, but to play devil's advocate, in my experience rather than not announcing schemes, I see people gravitate to 'easier' schemes, or ones where I can score 2VP's through playing the game rather than giving my opponent an arbitrary decision over whether I can achieve it or not.

In fluff terms, I think it is hard to reconcile, but in "pure" strategy game sense, I see it as multiple levels of the onion - there is something to be said for giving your opponent the arbitrary decision of whether to kill their master or most powerful minion, or to play with it, or to try and strike a balance of using it and then killing it before it is too late... Perhaps it should be just limited to schemes though - Deliver the Message is a fun strategy, but this can completely change the dynamic of the game - and denying your opponent 4VP at one fell swoop is pretty hard core - doing it for a scheme is not so game changing by comparison...

On the other hand, there are some strategies that are just plain harder to do in my experience - Reconnoiter seems extremely hard to score points in, and almost impossible in lower soul stone games where you don't have lots of minions...

[Toonook]

Well it really comes down to competitive versus friendly play. In a league or a tournament I would expect people to play a bit cut throat and pull whatever shenanigans they can to ensure maximum points. Amongst friends it's quite simple to just agree to not pull stuff like that and win the game on its merit by accomplishment rather than denial.

It's the denial aspect that seems to inspire the most rage in this game. The frustration of never being able to actually hit Pandora, or Hamelin making you insignificant, of Sonnia counterspelling everything you try to do, even Hoffman laughing at Raspy's attempts to place blast markers. Add to that the scheme/strategy denial and it definitely can come as a bit of a shock to most players of your less intricate wargames (ie GW) who revolve more around buffing your own ability and winning the meat grinder.

[Gruesome]

Well it really comes down to competitive versus friendly play.

I understand what you mean and agree that's the difference.

I am just tired of that difference and it always being used as an excuse to leave silliness in. There are plenty of strats and schemes that do not have what is, IMO, a silly way of scoring or preventing their being scored to draw inspiration from and even the strat and schemes in question could be amended so as to make their execution less of a fluff stretch.

They are not wooden block playing pieces to me and I am no fan of rules that support their being played as such.

[Sybaris]

We've yet to see it happen, but so far we've been on the friendly end of the spectrum, and never attacked our own model for the sake of point prevention. We'd rather see the models run away for their lives than kill our own.

This is different from killing your own models for spells or counters. Resurectionnists may very well want to recycle their undead creations, and it's not above nephilims to brutally execute a prisoner or hired gun if they want to feed or terrify their enemies.

But sacrificing your own master or crew just because the enemy want kill it? Basically...the opponent should actually get the victory points imho, it's just that they didn't have to lift a finger to accomplish their task.

[tadaka]

You cannot "not announce" deliver a message.

And if you have a lot of luck getting 1 point a scheme, more power to you, I guess. Our experiences differ.

I will grant you that some of the vp goals in the game need some work. Deliver a message is stupid easy imho and not what balance should be based on for the rest of the game.

As far as the one vp thing have you actualy tried the tactic of going for hard vp denial and not announcing?

Edited September 10, 2012 by tadaka
v

[FearLord]

In general I feel that the argument "it's something to do when playing in a tournament, but not in friendly games" is a bit of a cop out - either something is an abuse of the rules or working as intended - if it's an abuse, lets fix it, if it's intended people should be allowed to play it. I'm not saying I'm in favor of being a **** to your friends, but I don't agree that any person or group should arbitrarily decide what is and isn't acceptable for casual play. Fair enough to people that want self regulate their own power level, but really I feel like I should be able to play what and how I want within the rules without people saying I should deliberately ham string myself...

The rules tell you how to play - if something allowed by the rules is unacceptable for playing a friendly game, then the rules should be changed to reflect that.

[Toonook]

Well it's not unacceptable, but if a group wants to house rule then why not let them? Malifaux isn't a big game, you're generally not playing games against strangers at a club or anything (at least not down here in Melbourne). The VP and the opportunity for denial is another unique aspect for Malifaux, and I kinda like that it's there for when winning is really important. If I'm playing with my mates I'd rather do everything to try and get away and hide my opponent's grudge target than just stop him from completing it, the cat and mouse challenge is fun!

It's like picking a filth list, I'll happily figure out every last drop of insanity combinations for a competition, but with my friends I don't want to just faceroll them as our leisure time is precious and nobody likes to spend that in a futile effort. I guess it comes down to what you want out of the game, for me 90% of the time Malifaux is a fun, character driven game with heaps of fun flavour and personality. 10% of the time it's a power gamers wet nightmare. I like that balance, just depends on finding the right people to play with who share your philosophy.

Edit: It should never really be necessary to force your opinions on what is and isn't acceptable to your opponent. My position is that I'll ask them if we're just playing friendly or going all out at the start, then adjust my crew select / playstyle accordingly.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Toonook

[FearLord]

Nothing is especially wrong with groups agreeing to house rule stuff, but it does seem messier than it has to be - prefer to just be able to point to the rule book and say "this is how you play" than have to add caveats like "but doing this isn't socially acceptable" or "no one here wants to play against that master" or anything like that...

You make a good point about Malifaux being small, but I think a key component of encouraging more people to play is having one set of rules that everyone is playing to rather than having isolated pocketsof players all playing the game their own way...

I don't have a particular problem with the mechanic of killing your own men to deny victory points, but on reflection I think I would prefer it if this was limited to schemes rather than strategies - effecting your ability to get 4 VPs is too powerful for some masters - effecting 2vps is not as bad and allows you the option to pick alternatives. Anyone who announces 2 schemes that your opponent can deny by killing their own stuff deserves everything they get really...

[Gruesome]

Anyone who announces 2 schemes that your opponent can deny by killing their own stuff deserves everything they get really...

True.

But lame.

[gonzo917]

I think Drain Souls (1) really sets the standard on this situation. Just the fact that your master can sacrifice 3 models for 3 soulstones within 6" (pg 119) means that they took into account the option of removing your own models for a boost in soulstones, but lose in stats. How it relates being sportsmanship is that you and your opponent have that option. Killing your own master to deny 4vp is over the top to me, but it does make us think of whole new ways of employing schemes, stategies and crews. I think that is what makes this game great because there is far from just one way of playing a crew or a master. You always have to keep on your toes to little things. Ronin have a great way of disrupting kill protegee, they'd just seppeku, and "hey i hire another". lose of 3 soul stones, but VP denial. I think this game is very ends justify the means.

[Toonook]

Yeah and the theory is good in that. I lose a little bit but I'm denying my opponent as well, can I hold on or have I cost myself too much?

However, the sad reality is that people just don't take schemes like grudge. You just take hold out or breakthrough or something that the opponent can't deny and the game becomes a boring narrowed down version of itself simply because the risk v reward isn't enough for the harder schemes. Unless you play in gaining grounds format or something in which case you sit there and wonder how you're supposed to win as ressers with trash faction/master schemes, plus a hard time at a few of the main schemes, versus the neverborn and arcanists with their kidnap and power rituals and sabotage.

[Sybaris]

A scheme like Kidnap (Neverborn) or Assassinate has the perfect wording to avoid this. If the models aren't in the game at the end of the encounter, then you get the VP's.

This should be the basic guideline for anything requiring a kill. However, if your opponent helps you achieve a Kill protégé or Grudge, then by all means it should still count for your benefit.

For example, with Grudge, simply adding a line "If the selected model was killed or sacrificed by your opponent, you gain the VP (either 1 or 2) for this scheme" would solve the issue in my opinion.

Of course this is house rules territory, but it does prevent the downright odd "prevention" technique.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Sybaris

[Toonook]

Only problem with that is crews like kirai, crews that need to sacrifice their own models as part of their mechanics

[DeleteAccount]

Add a line about only significant models and a lot of that is controlled right there. I mean, if he marks a Gaki or a Night Terror, well, it's just 3 effective stones that can't get mixed, but can still do their job and if it's a starting Shikome, well, you have to deal with it like any other faction has to when they get kill protegee against them. I'd much rather saccing denial dissapears outright and if the convert to soulstone rule dissapeared tomorrow, I wouldn't bat an eye.

The point is it making you play a bit differently while not castrating you, I think as fellow Kirai players we can live with having to be more careful with one of our minions.

I remember in MKI Warmachine that attacking your own models was a lot more benefitial, then came MKII and controlled a lot of that and the game was a hell of a lot healthier thanks to it.