Am i a morally and ethically bad player?

[Ikvar]

This is something I am starting to see more and more of, and I cant help but scratch my head in confusion about the whole thing.

 

When I started on this hobby about a year ago, I was playing with someone who talked a lot about how horrible "power-players" and "cheese-lists" were, I did not understand it at that time... but little did I know that I would end up like one of the people he hated, which is actually one of the reasons we do not talk to each other anymore. 

 

I have luckily found a group of people now that sees Malifaux as the competitive game it is, and dont mind the way I play.

 

However I am seeing more and more comments on this forum  like "I dont see anything wrong with it in the rules, but it is ethically and morally horrible"... but why is it so wrong to do a lot a research to optimize your crew and playstile, and use the rules to your advantage- as long as you dont abuse some obvious bug in the game of course.

 

Now this thread is not to point fingers at anyone, everyone are entitled to their own opinion, I just really want to understand this side of the hobby. I understand that there should be room for a relaxed game aswell, but a relaxed game for me is still where I am trying to optimize my game and ultimately win- I dont mind loosing, but it is just more fun to win ^^ 

[monkeyking68]

Why is this in the rules forum?

 

Anyways, everybody eventually gets what they want from the game they play.  Gamers want to game; painters want to paint; story-tellers want to story-tell.  In the end, you should enjoy what you want from the hobby, and understand and accept that not everybody gets the same enjoyment as everybody else.

[PolishSausage]

Your gaming group has to have the same mindset in a group. Fluff gamers play the game with what ever list they like and try to enjoy the game experience. People like you who want to win and like to challenge the game will look for optimal lists that give them edge on scenarios and opponents faction.

 

What is more rewarding: playing someone running a model mish-mash that focuses on killing your models and not the scenario and 10-0'ing him or... playing someone competitive that uses a strong list/ has understanding of the game and you beat him by a 5-4 close game?

[HalcyonSeraph]

The problem with this question is that people see it in a lot of different ways, and the jargon we use to explain it isn't even consistent in its use. For example, take the recent rules threads: The one on charging ones-self and the one on companion/reactivate.

 

Personally, I think the charging one is very clearly a purposeful misreading of a grammatically sloppy sentence in order to convince people that something that is very clearly not intended by the rules might be "legal". THIS, to me at least, is "powergaming" or "rules lawyering" or whatever you want to call it - intentionally twisting the rules to gain a clearly unintended advantage. 

 

The other thread, though, is much more reasonable. It doesnt break the game to companion yourself if you have reactivate, there's nothing in the rules that really even implies you can't, and the language doesn't seem to be twitsed or garbled. Its not clear at all how it works, but I don't think either side is trying to get something or arguing in bad faith. 

 

As a player, I want the rules to be clear, and I want to use them to the best of my ability to get an advantage. I also don't want to bend over backwards to assign my own idea of designer intent to them when I don't actually know what they intended. But I don't want to cheat, and I don't want to use stuff that I KNOW isn't really the case just because of a typing error or some less than ironclad sentence structure. 

 

I used to play Heroclix and this was a big problem. I'd go to a tournament in which tehre were no theme restrictions, and would thus bring a mixed crew - marvel and DC fighting together, etc. And sometimes I would wind up paired with someone who played a fully theme-appropriate, say, Batman crew, and would get accused of cheese and powergaming for following the rules of the tournament. Whereas I saw that player as intentionally hamstringing themselves for no reason at all, and getting mad at me when I didn't play the game according to his extra made up rules. 

[monkeyboy30672]

I completely understand. The point of any game is to win, be it through competition or cooperation (as in some board games). Where "cheese-lists" and "power gaming" comes in is more on the unethical side, and it usually involves finding loopholes and other obvious oversights that can take advantage of the rules in ways that were obviously unintended by the designers. That happened a LOT with GW tournaments, which is why I never played in them.

 

Because I strictly got into miniature gaming because of the collecting and painting aspect of it, I am admittedly a TERRIBLE player! Especially when it comes to maximizing the synergy one needs in their army/warband/crew. I have never been able to get a grip on that facet of wargaming, and it really hurts my tactical planning (what little of it there is). But because I tend to build crew/faction/army lists based on a theme, and based on what models I like painting, I often miss out on things which would work especially well together.

 

For example.. my Neverborn list is purely based on Woes and the Orphanage. I could easily take puppets, demons, showgirls, Illuminated, etc... But I don't. I like the thought of JUST the creepy orphanage led by Pandora, the Mistress of Woe. But it also means I don't have as much tactical flexibility as I could have. I am fine with that. I know I'll probably lose to certain crews, no matter what I do. But I still enjoy playing. SURE, I enjoy winning! But for me, it's such a rare occasion, that I REALLY enjoy winning!! Hahaha!   But it's not the sole enjoyment for me.

 

If you have a thought that maybe something is taking the rules a bit far, then just try something else. If you're a good tactician, and because the rules are better balanced than I have seen in any other miniatures game, you should be able to win, regardless.

[Ikvar]

Just wanted to quickly say thanks for the first people in the thread for not taking this as some kind of "flame war", and I hope we can continue the mature and constructive tone

 

- oh and if the thread is in the wrong place, the Admins are more then welcome to move it.

 

Looking forward to more opinions from both sides

[thebarbalag]

I think there are two different issues at hand. One some people don't like to play competitively, and two, some people don't like to lose. A competitive player and a not competitive one probably won't have a great time playing each other. Someone who doesn't like to lose to the point where they call out good, competitive play as somehow immoral or unethical are rarely fun for anyone to play against.

As said elsewhere in this thread, it's unethical to cheat, to lie about a model's threat range or triggers, or whatever, and it's at least questionable to bring a controversial rules interpretation to the table in order to unexpectedly steam roll someone. It's not good for the game to bring a hyper tuned competition list to a demo or some poor newbies first game. It is not unethical, immoral, or otherwise wrong to bring a thoughtful, competitive list to a game, tournament, etc. Malifaux does some good to combat this with story encounters along side tournaments.

Long story short, don't be a jerk, but also don't take blame for playing a competitive game competitively.

[Dirial]

 

Personally, I think the charging one is very clearly a purposeful misreading of a grammatically sloppy sentence in order to convince people that something that is very clearly not intended by the rules might be "legal". THIS, to me at least, is "powergaming" or "rules lawyering" or whatever you want to call it - intentionally twisting the rules to gain a clearly unintended advantage. 

 

 

Ouch. Way to paint my intentions with that thread in a bad light. But since I explained my intentions in that thread, I not going to defend myself here again.

 

 

I think there are two different issues at hand. One some people don't like to play competitively, and two, some people don't like to lose. A competitive player and a not competitive one probably won't have a great time playing each other. Someone who doesn't like to lose to the point where they call out good, competitive play as somehow immoral or unethical are rarely fun for anyone to play against.

As said elsewhere in this thread, it's unethical to cheat, to lie about a model's threat range or triggers, or whatever, and it's at least questionable to bring a controversial rules interpretation to the table in order to unexpectedly steam roll someone. It's not good for the game to bring a hyper tuned competition list to a demo or some poor newbies first game. It is not unethical, immoral, or otherwise wrong to bring a thoughtful, competitive list to a game, tournament, etc. Malifaux does some good to combat this with story encounters along side tournaments.

Long story short, don't be a jerk, but also don't take blame for playing a competitive game competitively.

 

This I would sign wholeheartedly!

[HalcyonSeraph]

Ouch. Way to paint my intentions with that thread in a bad light. But since I explained my intentions in that thread, I not going to defend myself here again.

 

 

 

If I remember correctly, you even said you wouldn't do it or allow someone to get away with it in your games, but that you were concerned the wording needed to be erratad or FAQd to ensure it was never even a question. And that was my outlook on it too, so we agree. I only think it would be "unethical" to actually try to do it in a game using that as the reasoning - not simply to bring it up in the rules thread. 

[Dracomax]

The only time I would complain about a cheese list(other than to not concern, and try to find away around it) is when the list is consistently overpowered, and the opponent uses it constantly, without even trying to help others find ways around it.

 

Being competitive is one thing, and in tourneys, no problem. But there is a point where it stops being competitive, and starts being a bit of a jerk. I'd rather have a good competition between relatively balanced crews than curbstomp any day.

 

But if your group doesn't mind it, then more power to you, just don't expect to be beloved by every other player.

 

that being said, I wholeheartedly agree with everything in Joshtehstampede's post. It is unethical if you are using "munchkin" like behavior, where you lie, cheat, and bend the rules as far as you can get away with for the win. That would make you a bad person. You aren't a bad person, are you?

[HalcyonSeraph]

To me, if there exists a list or model or tactic that is completely within the rules, and not ambiguous in its legality, but still presents a real problem if and when people use it, that is the fault of the game designers, not the player. It needs to be erratad. You can't ask the players to respect an unspoken agreement to use the best stuff in the game but not REALLY the best stuff in the game, because the playerbase clearly won't agree on what is simply good and what is too good. I'm sure there's a lot of players that wouldn't have a problem facing 1 Belle, but would groan and cry cheese against 6 Belles - at which point it becomes, well, what about 2? 4? How many is thematic and how many makes me a powergamer? There's an old saying that "What I use to beat you is skill. What you use to beat me is cheese."

 

The 1.5 Filth stuff and Dreamer and Hamelin were good examples of this - I didn't blame people for bringing those lists to tournaments as long as they were legal. I would have blamed them for bringing them to local casual gaming night at the LGS, though. 

[Mako]

Personally, I find playing against competitive players quite draining, as that's very different to my more fluff-and-laughs based gaming. But, and I want to stress this, that's at least as much my problem as theirs. They enjoy the competitive win, finding the optimal crew, strategies and tactics. I enjoy a bit of a laugh without worrying too much about whether my crew is the best for the job, or if I could have grabbed that extra VP if I'd done X instead of Y.

 

It's a different way of playing to mine, but totally valid. The key is to know who you're facing I'd say - battering newbies or sporadic fluff players with your tournament A-game isn't fun for either side I'd imagine, so it comes down to having a group that is into the same things as you. Which it sounds like you've got, so you shouldn't feel bad about it at all. It's only a problem if you're seeking out fluff players to thrash 10-0, which it sounds like you'd hate doing. 

 

It mostly comes down to a matter of knowing when someone isn't looking for that competitive level game, and when they are, I guess.

 

Besides, without people looking for the new, better plays and combos, tactica pages would probably be fairly naff!

 

Also, I moved this to the general malifaux discussion area.

[Ikvar]

No matter the situation it is never okay to intentionally cheat or abuse an obvious fault in the rules, no reason to duscuss that part ^^

 

The only reason why I feel obligated to help people after a match if I end up destroying them, is simply because I am a Henchman and therefore want to make sure people are enjoying themself etc. But if I was just a random player, I actually think I would keep my tactics a lot more to myself.

 

One of the veteran players I play a lot with had a crew with Pandora that completely destroyed everyone he went up against, including me three times in a row. He then said "I will keep playing this list, until someone defeats me", and I have NEVER learned more about the game, tactics and my own faction then being forced to try and counter that list. I ended up winning in the end which of course felt really good, but most of all I was just grateful towards him, as he truly forced me to research the game.

 

I would never think anyone was a jerk simply because they had found an awsome crew, and how to play with them. I just see it as a fun challenge, and I am just happy if I am forced to think differently about the game and how you can play it

[Dracomax]

 

The 1.5 Filth stuff and Dreamer and Hamelin were good examples of this - I didn't blame people for bringing those lists to tournaments as long as they were legal. I would have blamed them for bringing them to local casual gaming night at the LGS, though. 

This is fairly close to what I was trying to say.

 

I think the biggest thing is rule 0 of games: don't be a jerk. If you are curbstomping another player consistently, then you should probably be offering to help them get better, offering tactics, etc.(not necessarily during the game, but after, at least). maybe swapping crews, to see if you do any better against it. If you can't do anything against the crew you've created, it might be unreasonable for non-tournament play, or it might need an errata. Of course, everything is going to depend on the people you game with.

[hypoking]

Thanks for starting a great discussion, Ikvar

 

I tend to play competively. I don't realy think about it as trying to win so much as trying to ensure I'm getting the best possible game in. To me, that best possible game is when both parties are doing everything they concievably can within the bounds of the rules to wreck the other guy. That's what's fun to me. I love those games that descend into desperate slugging matches or frantic races to drop those last few markers. Its a courtesy thing more than anything else. If I'm not trying to lob the kitchen sink in I'm doing a diservice to myself and to my opponent.

[Ikvar]

I tend to play competively. I don't realy think about it as trying to win so much as trying to ensure I'm getting the best possible game in. To me, that best possible game is when both parties are doing everything they concievably can within the bounds of the rules to wreck the other guy. That's what's fun to me. I love those games that descend into desperate slugging matches or frantic races to drop those last few markers. Its a courtesy thing more than anything else. If I'm not trying to lob the kitchen sink in I'm doing a diservice to myself and to my opponent.

Quoted for truth

[mythicFOX]

I'd agree with a lot of what's been said above. I enjoy the competitive game, and the way it's portrayed is something of a passion of mine.

 

Players also tend to conflate conduct and competitiveness into one issue. They equate a higher level of competitiveness with the lower level of conduct. The dreaded phrase 'power gamer' is used as derogatory term for a competitive player.  They are of coarse two separate issues and I've never experienced any link between competitiveness and having poor conduct.

 

Bending and breaking the rules is a conduct issue, not a competitive issue.

[Hagisman]

In order to get out of competitive mindset in 40k I am going to petition some of the players in my 40k group to start playing narrative game missions.

[Mako]

That's very true, Mythic. You can be a competitive gamer and not a douche quite easily. I've met both competitive and fluff gamers who are douches, and both types who are perfectly good opponents. 

 

It is pretty harsh when competitive play is seen as something bad. I'd say it's only bad if you go into a match that both players have agreed is just a fun throwabout, or possibly a learning game for someone new,and still slam into them full force (chiefly because they'll get blindsided and won't be able to put up much of a fight).

If it's declared beforehand to be a gentle game, go gentle. If it's a learning game like Ikvar was doing against pandora, or a tourney game, or any game where both players want to, then for sure go all out.

 

It very much depends on both players, as long as they both want the same thing then why should anyone else's opinion of the 'right' type of fun matter?

[rythos42]

I've got a fifth (or sixth...) point of view on this discussion (since everyone above so nicely pointed out all the other things I might have said!).

 

I love this game so much that I even love losing, because even when I'm losing I have something I can do the change the game. I have agency, I have choices I can make to make a difference. In Warhammer Fantasy (my previous main game), once I start losing I might as well grab a book and hang on, because there's nothing left I can do to change anything. I lost an hour ago, and now we're just haggling over price.

 

I describe my best game of Malifaux ever on my blog (shameless plug!): http://geeksong.com/pigment.apply/2014/03/gottacon-2014-day-2/ (Game 3, for those who go read). In summary, I was being absolutely dismantled by a better player with a better crew. But even with only 2 activations left, I reasoned through my options, made some choices and those choices made the difference between a 9-3 loss and a 5-3 loss. That's incredible. I may have won that tournament because of those 2 activations. 

 

 

So yeah, bring on your "super cheese", and when we're done, I'll be thinking about what model I could have brought to slow you down.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Exactly that, yeah. I'm a competitive player in that I enjoy strategy, tactics, and pitting my brain against someone else's brain. I don't always have to win, but I always have to TRY to win. But that doesn't mean I don't like fluff, or theme, or wonderfully painted models, or having fun at the store with friends. I love all those things. But if ALL I cared about was laughing with friends and cool stories, I would talk to them about books or movies. Instead I play this game because I like what THIS GAME brings to that social setting. 

 

Like Mako said, it's different playstyles. I personally don't understand why anyone would want to play a "gentle" game outside of a demo or teaching game - why would you intentionally not play to your best ability? But some people really enjoy that style of play, clearly. To me, if I am consistently getting blown out by some tactic - like say a Viks slingshot or Collodi's shenanigans - I would either blame myself for not being able to beat it, or I would, eventually, blame the game/model for being broken. I would never blame the other player for using it though, and it wouldn't even occur to me to do so. 

[hypoking]

I love this game so much that I even love losing, because even when I'm losing I have something I can do the change the game. I have agency, I have choices I can make to make a difference. In Warhammer Fantasy (my previous main game), once I start losing I might as well grab a book and hang on, because there's nothing left I can do to change anything. I lost an hour ago, and now we're just haggling over price.

 

Absolutely. When you win that just means the system works the way you thought it did. When you loose you've just found a way to improve things and make it better for the next time.

[Tumling]

This is a bit weird for me, i am a big talker for playing and having fun, and i also want to win.

I have played aginst the players you play with now, and if how they play is competitive, then i guess im also a competitive player, but i still want to have fun!

I have also played aginst Joel from the fools and MythicFox and more, but they are known as some of the best players in the UK, and i really enjoyed those games, and i guess they are competitve.

But in my world you can be competitive and a *insert some not so nice word here* or you can be a competitive player AND a fun player, or just play to have fun, i like the last to playertypes.

And i belive that at least in Denmark most if not all players are one of the last 2 playertypes, and thats really important.

 

In all the games i have played in my Malifaux time, i have only had 1 game that stands out as not enjoyable, and the only reason i did not enjoy that game was becouse every single time i used an action he wanted to check my card to see if i could do what i said i would, and and just really be a rules *insert some not so nice word here*.

 

When i play, i play to win, if im not testing something random, but if i had to pick between a Win in a game that was not fun or a Lose in a FUN game i would each and every time pick the last one!

Sure i can play hard, and i do that some times, but the most important thing to me is that i can see my opponent in the eyes when the game is done win or lose it doesnt matter.

 

If i cant see myself or my opponent in the eyes after a win, the win was not worth it...

but that does not mean i wont play to win...

 

But i do think you are a bit more competitive minded "overthere" in your group, and we are in my group, but whats wrong with that ?

[Dracomax]

I will say that even if I wouldn't want to play with you, I'd never say you were immoral or ethically bad for bringing a "cheese" crew, or for beating me. If you act like a jerk, I'd treat you like a jerk, and if you curbstomp a newer player because you can, rather than help them learn, then I'd recommend new players stay away from you, but I wouldn't claim you were immoral or whatnat. That is pretty much reserved for actual rules lawyering, which I always take to mean those people who look for loopholes to bend a rule beyond what the people who made it could possibly have meant in order to gain an advantage—and outright cheaters.

 

Personally, outside of tournaments, I don't like to play against crews where I feel like from the beginning, no matter what I did, how good my strategies are, I had no chance of winning. I find it both boring and pointless, as I don't really learn anything from a filth list, or a first edition Alp Bomb, other than "know what the opponent is bringing and build a list specifically against it" Which actually would be cheating. I can take an uphill battle. Hopeless battles are something else. If I see another player feeling like they are in a hopeless battle against me, I try to give them advice and help them get stronger. I'd rather face someone who can beat me half the time than someone I'm going to take out every time.

 

I like being challenged, not curbstomped.

 

However, just because your playstyle isn't what I would like, doesn't make it wrong.

[Bruglyother]

I have the good fortune to be a henchman for a play group that blends the two nicely.  We play predominantly fluff/theme list, not because we feel we need to, but because we like the fluff so much we want to emulate it.  But, we are competitive within our games.  Sure, our list may not be ultra streamlined, but we still try to optimize to some extent, and we still scrabble for points as best we can.  On the other hand, we all seem to enjoy a good thrashing from time to time.  We very much have the mindset of, "well, my luck has gone to crap, lets see how epically bad this will get and laugh the whole way."  All this while trying for the come back.

 

At one point we had a player who was more of the "streamline super list" variety.  He was a good guy, and fun to hang around.  Most of us enjoyed playing him as long as we didn't have to do it too many times in a row.  The only real issue came when he had trouble toning down lists for newer or struggling players.  (We have had a few players that no matter how long they play, they just didn't get it, and got frustrated when stomped.)  He knew he had this problem and tried dealing with it as best he could. 

 

As had been said, you can be any genre of player (insert whatever label you choose), and still be a dick.  Or you can do the same and be fun.  Personally, I will play any type of player if they know how to make the game fun, not just for themselves, but for both players.  This doesn't mean toning things down or playing harder.  This means have fun, and realize that it is a game.  Not life.  Don't take it so seriously that any wrong moment can bring you down.  Players who joke about bad hands, or laugh when their opponent flips three severes on a double negative; these are the players I like.  Doesn't matter the list building involved.  Play the game as a game and its all good.