Card Counting

[quotemyname]

There comes a time when one must step there game up to the next level. Performing basic strategies with your crews is one thing, but being able to predict what that crucial flip is going to be is another thing altogether.

I'd like to hear from everyone what their card counting strategies are. Please post here if you have any good suggestions for others!

---

If a thread like this already exists and I missed it, I apologize. If this ends up being useful enough to be stickied, that would be cool too :)

[alemon]

You should start performing more complicated strategies with your crews once you've got the basics down

[nilus]

Card counting will get you a pair of broken legs in Vegas.

That being said in Malifaux its perfectly legal.

As far as basic strategies go.

1) Just try to remember what cards have already went by, if you have seen a lot of low cards in a row then you can play the odds that the next card might be high. Same with suits, if you have not seen a crow in your last 10 draws then you got a good chance of seeing one soon

2) With the currently rules for Jokers its sometimes worth cheating to lower your total. If you are fighting Res and you already saw your black joker go by its might be worth it to tie and win(with that extra flip), then beat them between 1 and 5(or even 6 and 10). Since if you are negative flipping anyways you might as well flip more and hope for the red joker.

I am perfectly fine with people trying to count cards in there head, as long as it doesn't slow up the game. Starting to keep track of cards on paper is where I draw the line and start wanting to break legs :).

[quotemyname]

You should start performing more complicated strategies with your crews once you've got the basics down

My initial post was really just a bit of descriptive fluff to intro the thread. Believe it or not, I actually do know an advanced strategy or two ;)

---

I would agree. Once you start keeping tallies of every card you draw, you've crossed the line.

I know the benefits of abusing the twists already. What I was really looking for in this thread was to see if anyone had any mental rhetorics that they found particularly effective at counting cards.

For example: I've heard that if your looking for a certain suit, you could keep track of the cards you flip by using simple addition. Everytime you flip the suit you want: -3. When you flip one you don't want: +1. I'm told that when you get to about +6 or so, you'll have a 50% chance of flipping what you want.

[Mr_Smigs]

really, all you need is a simple plus-minus system to track if taking a high-risk (high card needed) maneuver is viable...

but then,
you could just make a ipod app that checks the cards for you and spits out the probability...
draw cards, punch suit and value, it re-calcs the odds of whatever value you're looking for...

it'd just be another tool like a tape measure, glass counters, or dry erase marker...

[mylastnerv]

really, all you need is a simple plus-minus system to track if taking a high-risk (high card needed) maneuver is viable...

but then,
you could just make a ipod app that checks the cards for you and spits out the probability...
draw cards, punch suit and value, it re-calcs the odds of whatever value you're looking for...

it'd just be another tool like a tape measure, glass counters, or dry erase marker...

Not sure I'd be really pumped to play against someone who after every card flip is keying in information to try to predict the odds of what is coming next. There comes a point where you have to leave part of the game up to a battle of the brains and the brains alone, and leave home all the "helpful" tools.

[notmikehill]

Do you know how difficult it would be to play and card count at the same time? Especially if you're playing a pretty fast game, their would be cards being flipped so fast, and if you cycle through your deck you'd have to reshuffle, not to mention every time you draw a new card to your hand and the hand you have you'd have to keep the tally with, as well the cards you flip and cheat with. It would be too staggering imo.

[Iamwyrd]

really, all you need is a simple plus-minus system to track if taking a high-risk (high card needed) maneuver is viable...

but then,
you could just make a ipod app that checks the cards for you and spits out the probability...
draw cards, punch suit and value, it re-calcs the odds of whatever value you're looking for...

it'd just be another tool like a tape measure, glass counters, or dry erase marker...

Ya someone busts out an iPod or iPhone and starts punching numbers into it. I would not play them, if they can't do it in their head, then oh well. Cause seems like cheating on a new scale to me, lol

[nilus]

you could just make a ipod app that checks the cards for you and spits out the probability...
draw cards, punch suit and value, it re-calcs the odds of whatever value you're looking for...

it'd just be another tool like a tape measure, glass counters, or dry erase marker...

Except I wouldn't play the person using it, also would disallow it at any tournament I ran. Its on the same level as writing down what cards you get on a piece of paper.

As far as the system above mentioned. The problem is at any given time in Malfaux you are not always looking for the same suit or card. So sure you can keep track of when you will get a mask, but what happens if this draw you need a crow.

Like others have said its seems nearly impossible to do reliably while playing the game. I am sure some sort of savant could do it but its well beoynd the skills of most of us.

[Mr_Smigs]

if you're going to state that card counting is in the spirit of the game, then how can you deny tools that aid in that spirit?


as soon as you say the "not cheating" act of card counting is acceptable,
then you open the door to all the parts of that act.


if a player showed up to a tourney with an ipod pre-programmed so all he had to do was punch in numbers, and was quick enough that it didn't break his rhythm of play,

would you deny them the right to play?

how is that any different than someone who can do it in their head ?




by allowing card counting,
since this is a game of cards,
you should also say "stacking the deck is also allowed"
or "marking cards is also allowed"

why bother counting when I can just play with a marked deck and KNOW what the next flip is?

[Peterdita]

1) I try and keep rack of my jokers.
2) I try and keep track of the high suited cards that cast a specific spell. 10+ crow for example.
3) if someone was entering every card flip into a tally sheet/phone, I'd pack my minis up and leave.
4) the +/- system used in 'bringing down the house' is a good one as well.

I find that it rarely really matters that much and it really only comes up when I have to flip a 7+ on df with a soulstone, I try to judge my odds vs just using the stone to reduce the damage for example.

[notmikehill]

if you're going to state that card counting is in the spirit of the game, then how can you deny tools that aid in that spirit?


as soon as you say the "not cheating" act of card counting is acceptable,
then you open the door to all the parts of that act.


if a player showed up to a tourney with an ipod pre-programmed so all he had to do was punch in numbers, and was quick enough that it didn't break his rhythm of play,

would you deny them the right to play?

how is that any different than someone who can do it in their head ?




by allowing card counting,
since this is a game of cards,
you should also say "stacking the deck is also allowed"
or "marking cards is also allowed"

why bother counting when I can just play with a marked deck and KNOW what the next flip is?

I don't want to derail the conversation too much, but I do think that coming into a tournament with anything to track what cards you or an opponent are using just seems like a blatant way to cheat. I can understand trying to do it in your head because it allows for human error as well as multitasking several other variables going on at once can cause for even greater human error.

[Guy in Suit]

Everytime you flip the suit you want: -3. When you flip one you don't want: +1. I'm told that when you get to about +6 or so, you'll have a 50% chance of flipping what you want.


:hahaha:

Pretty sure where you got that!

WAAaaaay oversimplified. I only have really looked at black jack card counting and this was just an off the cuff remark. The size of the Shoe remaining is crucial, and in Malifaux super easy to judge.

I will think about this harder and give you more realistic odds if I have time.

[nilus]

by allowing card counting,
since this is a game of cards,
you should also say "stacking the deck is also allowed"
or "marking cards is also allowed"

Stacking your deck or playing with marked cards is entirely different then keeping track of cards in your head. One is a mental trick to help judge your odds that is far from 100% effective. The other is blatantly modifying you card or physically cheating when shuffling to put certain cards on top.

[Berman]

I find its far more benificial to look for number range. Weak/Mod/Severe and keep those in my head than anything else. I.e. take a note of each severe played, there are only 13 in a deck. Suits are just, well you tend to need a highish suit when you need it.

[Guy in Suit]

Don't worry to much about Mr_Smigs... he has no idea what he is talking about.

Card Counting is simply calculating probabilities. Probability is a key part of this game, much as in other wargames, whether they use dice or whatever.

Using anything other than mental accumen to do this is [Excuse my language I'm a New Yorker] cheating. Granted this is a social normality and not laid down specifically in the rules, but then again so is not walking around with a chicken on your head.

I'm going to bust out my Black Jack table and see if I can't develope some strategies. It will be interesting adding suits to the mix, but I think a simple -3 +1 system could work and the math with a single deck should be easy enough that it will work for non-quants.

Note that its a lot easier for me to count when I play with a plane-jane deck of cards and not the Wyrd ones. The shapes and suits have just been ingrained in my head for decades so its much easier to identify and categorize quickly on multiple flips.

So far my opponents tend to use the puppet decks so I limit my counting to my own cards... for now!

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

Let's keep this conversation civil and mind the cursing please.

[quotemyname]

Yea, Guy in Suit deserves credit for that little simple strategy. ;)

As far as spirit of the game vs. cheating goes...

My general rule of thumb would be:
If it's a non-physical way of counting cards / tracking numbers or suits, that's fine. That's just a mastery of tactical skill and probability laws.

If a player uses a method of counting that physically impacts the game in anyway, such as recording flips, using a calculator/phone/whatever, that's cheating.

Even further on the spectrum would be marking cards. That would in NO WAY be a respectable tactic. Not only would I be disinclined to play against a person that marked their cards, I would recommend that others do not play them as well.

as far as physical tools being the same as a ruler? No. Just no. Look at it this way. The game GIVES you a ruler. But you're not even allowed to use it until you've already declared what you're doing.

One more thing: Wearing a chicken on your head aside, there ARE many things that don't explicitly appear in the rulebook. For these items, do your best to make a gentlemen's agreement about them. "The rules don't say I CAN'T do it," is never a valid argument in my opinion.

BACK TO CARD COUNTING!

Anyone else have any cool ideas?

[Guy in Suit]

Not someone else, but I did some quick math.

Back to the original Collette question where you need to flip a tome, any tome, using a soulstone with a positive twist, your odds are actually 57% with a 6 count! (I forgot about the Red joker!)

Thats actually pretty good.

[KiltedWolf]

Meaning no disrespect, but I don't get this -- perhaps it is because I am not a math major, and numbers have never come easily to me.

I play the game for escapism and entertainment; I think enough at my job, that strategizing is enough for me to think about. That being said, I believe the rules provide for what card counting takes to the extreme: the ability to cheat fate and perhaps alter an event. That is enough for me and retains the flavor of the chances and luck of life. Knowing well what your next card will be and then basing your decision off this knowledge seems to fly in the face of the spirit of the game, much less friendly competition.

Living life to me is facing uncertainty and making the best decision possible. Sometimes you fail despite the best of intentions or strategies because of the "fickle hand of fate"; and sometimes you win for just that same reason -- that is life. To replace chance and surprise with foreknowledge seems a far less colorful way to play/live.

Just my two cents...

[Sholto]

I don't count cards, but if I did I would use a simple +/- system. A 6 or a 7 is a zero. Anything higher than that is + the difference, so a 10 would be +3. Anything lower is - the difference, so an Ace would be -5.

So if you draw a 9 (+2), an 11 (+4) and a 3 (-3), your running total is +3, meaning your remaining deck has a slight bias to lower cards. The larger the number gets (+ or -) the greater the bias remaining in the deck, so if you are about to press the game, but you have a slim deck left and it's at +25, probably best to fall back and wait for the next Turn.

Unless you have a killer hand, that is :) Which is why counting your opponent's cards will never give you a complete picture, since you won't know what he's holding.

Ethically, I think this kind of counting is a grey area. You are probably doing it subconsciously anyway to some degree (keeping track of your run of good/ bad luck, and you just have a funny feeling there must be some high cards coming). I might enjoy trying it as an intellectual exercise, but I personally wouldn't do the real thing in an actual game.

[mylastnerv]

Stacking your deck or playing with marked cards is entirely different then keeping track of cards in your head. One is a mental trick to help judge your odds that is far from 100% effective. The other is blatantly modifying you card or physically cheating when shuffling to put certain cards on top.

I stand by this opinion. I would like to learn to keep track of everything going on, but if Malifaux there is just so many things going on at once it can be hard to add one more things to the list to memorize.

. . . . but getting a decent grasp on keeping track what has been played and what may be coming up would prob make Levi an even worse opponent.

[Mr_Smigs]

it's a very dangerous moral game you're playing here,
where, and when do you draw the line?

why is using an aid considered worse than the act of counting cards itself?

anyone can learn a few simple memory tricks so that if they shuffle the deck faces-up they can get a grasp of that the rhythm will be...
particularly with the notably unique cards in a Fate Deck.


you say "the rules don't say I can't" is a bad defense, but use it yourself.
the rules DON'T say "no card counting"
just like they DON'T say "don't write down every flip"
and the DON'T say how long you have to make a turn
and they DON'T say your cards can't be marked
and they DON'T say you can't look at all the cards in the deck, then reshuffle before each flip... or that you'd even have to reshuffle if you did look.

by saying "it's just a mental trick that's not 100%..." well, none of the methods of cheating are 100%... the other player's deck is still a factor.


so again.
where do you draw the line?
why is one "simple mental trick" (remembering cards) allowed, when another "mental trick" (reading the patterns on the back of the cards) denied?

both can be used by both players.
it's just a matter of who's practiced it more.



by the logic "the game gives you a ruler but you arn't supposed to use it" ...
the game gives you a deck of cards, but you're not supposed to interact with it until the flip.



yes, there are social norms, and they vary wherever you go. the game makes certain assumptions based on the norms of the people who wrote it.

[RisingPhoenix]

This is reasonably easy to adapt from bridge, although it has some more details, and loses some bridge cares about (the 13 card patterns). I've been doing it reasonably naturally from experience with bridge.

Anyway, here's my system:

I count for every card flip. At the same time, I keep a running total the following way:

Mild: 0
Moderate: +1
Severe: +2

(I usually remember it as 5 over, or 3 under the flip count).

Then I count the number of times the suit I care about (if there is one) came up.


This effect gets really dramatic late in the deck.

After 40 cards have been shown (34 flips), if you've seen 9 of the suit you need, it's a 28% probability you'll see one on the next flip. If it's 7, it's 42%. If it's 11, it's 14%.

I'll upload a spreadsheet with it sometime, it's rather interesting.

[mylastnerv]

it's a very dangerous moral game you're playing here,
where, and when do you draw the line?

why is using an aid considered worse than the act of counting cards itself?

anyone can learn a few simple memory tricks so that if they shuffle the deck faces-up they can get a grasp of that the rhythm will be...
particularly with the notably unique cards in a Fate Deck.


you say "the rules don't say I can't" is a bad defense, but use it yourself.
the rules DON'T say "no card counting"
just like they DON'T say "don't write down every flip"
and the DON'T say how long you have to make a turn
and they DON'T say your cards can't be marked
and they DON'T say you can't look at all the cards in the deck, then reshuffle before each flip... or that you'd even have to reshuffle if you did look.

by saying "it's just a mental trick that's not 100%..." well, none of the methods of cheating are 100%... the other player's deck is still a factor.


so again.
where do you draw the line?
why is one "simple mental trick" (remembering cards) allowed, when another "mental trick" (reading the patterns on the back of the cards) denied?

both can be used by both players.
it's just a matter of who's practiced it more.



by the logic "the game gives you a ruler but you arn't supposed to use it" ...
the game gives you a deck of cards, but you're not supposed to interact with it until the flip.



yes, there are social norms, and they vary wherever you go. the game makes certain assumptions based on the norms of the people who wrote it.

Then just leave up that ruling for organizers of events and leagues. If your opponent is fine with you using such tools, then go right ahead. I know most judges will not let such devices in.

So the argument for that can pretty much stop now.

[RisingPhoenix]

Yah, devices are right out in my book. If you can do the trick, fine. But using computers is using outside assistance.

[Mr_Smigs]

Then just leave up that ruling for organizers of events and leagues. If your opponent is fine with you using such tools, then go right ahead. I know most judges will not let such devices in.

So the argument for that can pretty much stop now.

well, tourney runners have weighed in on this,
and i'm still terribly curious if this is an acceptable practice to them.


really.

the spreadsheet mentioned by RisingPhoenix
if a player prints that up and brings it to the game,
is that going to be considered cheating?

what if the player has a glass stone they move about the chart to track where in the deck they are so they can quick-find their probabilities?

how would that be any different from an ipod app?


really. what makes "outside assistance" wrong if doing it in your head is right?
why?

[Justin]

it's a very dangerous moral game you're playing here,
where, and when do you draw the line?

why is using an aid considered worse than the act of counting cards itself?

Because it's annoying.

Yes, it's that simple.

I don't think it's in any way unfair, but it would slow down the game to the point of being un-enjoyable. If I am not enjoying a game, I will stop playing.

Same as I would stop playing if someone looked up every single word on their character cards in a dictionary. It's not cheating...but I'm not going to sit there while you do that.



so again.
where do you draw the line?
why is one "simple mental trick" (remembering cards) allowed, when another "mental trick" (reading the patterns on the back of the cards) denied?

Two reasons:

1) Marked cards give you exact knowledge of which card is to be flipped, not the likely hood that a card will be flipped.

2) Your opponent does not have equal access to this information. Anyone can calculate the probability of the next flip if they were paying attention and are capable of doing sixth grade math. (if one player had a learning handicap, or was under the age of 12 then yes, I would actually say card counting was unfair, as both players did not have access to it) However, both players do not know how you marked your cards. It is an unfair advantage given to one player and not another. Now, you could argue, "you could both mark your cards!" And, if both players agree to that, who am I to argue? But if one player is doing it secretly then, yes, that player is taking an unfair advantage.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

I think this is all silly since 99% of people don't have the capability to perform a decent card counting for one deck let alone know what level of risk to take when the averages "look" good. And do all of this while following what is happening on the board; your opponents moves and your own.

But if it provides a fun discussion go for it.

Bring in tools to perform counting for you is a big no no in my book. Humans suck at math when they multi task their thinking. Machines don't.:soapbox:

[Mr_Smigs]

Because it's annoying.

2) Your opponent does not have equal access to this information.

not everyone learns card counting in 6th grade math.

by your definition (a 12 year old, or someone handicapped) there are select times when it's unfair?

so, cheating's OK so long as you both do it equally?

how do you know that 12 year old CAN'T count cards?
or that the handicap isn't faked?
or that the average joe standing on the other side of the table has ever even considered card counting as an option for this game?

[Justin]

not everyone learns card counting in 6th grade math.

by your definition (a 12 year old, or someone handicapped) there are select times when it's unfair?

so, cheating's OK so long as you both do it equally?

how do you know that 12 year old CAN'T count cards?
or that the handicap isn't faked?
or that the average joe standing on the other side of the table has ever even considered card counting as an option for this game?

Everyone learns the skills required for card counting in sixth grade math. (changing probability) Choosing to put it to use is the only question.

Just because my opponent doesn't consider his options doesn't make the fact that I considered mine cheating. You could say the same of any tactical situation. Am I cheating because I thought to hide my models behind terrain and my opponent didn't? The question is: is it outside of the social norms to keep track of the odds of drawing a specific card? I think most would tell you no, it is not. Now, if my opponent specifically asked me before hand, "Hey, buddy, don't count the cards." And I did anyway then, yes, I would call that cheating.

And actually, yes, cheating is ok so long as you both do it equally. To back this up, I would first have to define cheating. I would define it: an unfair advantage gained by one player over another that falls either outside the rules of the game, or the social norms surrounding it. By that definition, if you both cheat "equally" no unfair advantage is had and no cheating has occurred. If both players agree to premeasure for the duration of the game, is premeasuring still cheating simply because the rulebook disallows it? I would say no, both players did it. It was fine.

Yes, there are select times when it is unfair. When your opponent is unable to do it. Similarly, I think there are even times when using good tactical judgement is unfair. If you're teaching a 4 year old how to play and you obey all the rules but play your best and beat the **** out of him...were you being fair?

[Justin]

Hmm...I hope I don't come off as condescending saying any sixth grader has the math skills to count cards.

But I think most people are smart enough to do so, if they choose to.

[Zorlath]

The problem with using a simple +/- system to count is that you're trying to look for something specific, which supposedly you want to use for a specific action. However, if you're holding off preforming your specific action, who's to say by the time you have the deck set up how you want it, you still need it that way? If you're trying to get a +6 to activate Collete, it's possible you hold off her activation until she's the to last to activate, but you still don't have your +6, you could activate your second to last model and even worsen your odds.

The best way to card count is to simply remember all the cards you've already flipped. Believe it or not, it isn't hard to do with a 54 card deck. Most competitive Magic: the Gathering players can do this without it slowing the game.

As for bringing tools to help you. It's like having a tape measure. You're constantly supposed to be using your judgment to determine distances until you commit yourself to an action that requires the distance to be known by everyone.

[Berman]

Think of it this way, when playing poker. You can count cards in your head and are expected to do so.

Using an outside resource to do so is a strict no no.

One is a mark of intellect and skill, to play well and track what you think are your probabilities. Same as having a good eye for distance.

Pre-measuring, computer/spread sheet aids for card counting are akin to the same thing. Both would slow the game down. Both take from the skill of a player. Beyond that its bad form. Akin to the player who never shows you what he played, or incorrectly tells you what his figures abilities are or how they work.

Anyway that is all just personal opinion, but this being a miniatures game and not a computer game. A core element of the rules is that you can't premeasure, I'd warn a player using outside help to count cards once then kick them from a tournament if they persisted.

[Wodschow]

Well... There's a reason that there's a rule against looking through the Discard Piles.

If you could just write the order of the cards in the pile down, then what use is it?

[icemantis99]

There's a rule against looking at the discard pile? Huh. *shrug*

Anyways. They way I think about it is like this:
Let's look at measuring distances as a example.
If you're experienced at wargaming, you can judge distances pretty well in your head. You can tell if two given models are within a foot prety easily, and could make a good guess at any given range.
If my opponent is sitting there staring at the table for 5 minutes before declaring his/her action, it's pretty shady. I'm gonna ask him/her to try and speed up, or I'm not going to play with them, they're obviously pre-judging distance. It's not specifically against the rules, but it's against the spirit of the rules, it's annoying, and it slows the game down.
If my opponent pulls a ruler out before declaring his/her action, I'm crying foul. That's blatant cheating.
Summary: Keeping a running tally in your head? Not cheating, just good battle awareness. Deep-analyzing the cards? Sorta cheating, not exactly good sportsmanship. Using a outside device, be it a pencil/paper combo, a spreadsheet, or a calculator? Blatant cheating.

And Smigs, please, don't use "slippery slope" arguments. It's terrible logic, and it makes my head hurt. "If we do y, what's to stop us from eating babies?" Makes very little sense, and sides, I can use it against you.
"If we don't allow counting cards, why don't we disallow thinking about the batlefield at all?"

[icemantis99]

Back on topic...
I haven't found it really practical to count cards in Malifaux. I play Ramos/Levi a lot, and it's just too much work, to be really honest. I mean, for Levi, it can be nice to count crows for some triggers, but it's no worh the hassle a lot. Just my personal opinion, of course.

[Keltheos]

I really hope we don't have to put some long list of "Do's and Do Not's" when it comes to card counting and skirting the border of honest game play, the fact that this thread has turned into a morality debate is a little frightening…at the end of the day, Malifaux is just a game – one that is intended to be enjoyed by all players, including those who can’t count cards.

Card counting is effectively premeasuring your Deck and/or your opponent’s Deck. Some folks excel at guessing distances without the aid of a tape measure, the same goes true for cards (although for me dedicated card counters drift closer to the cheating arena than the ability to eyeball distances well does). If you're bringing an 'aid' to the table (the length of a book off to one side, or your hand span placed strategically during a turn - for measuring; a spreadsheet or some other means of physically tracking cards played (stacking innocuous counters in a certain way off the table, etc) - for counting cards) you've crossed from 'being good at' something to 'exploiting/cheating' it in my book.

That isn't to say folks good at mentally counting cards aren't taking advantage of a system, regardless of what the 'norms' are for that player's local area. But, just like poker, where a good knowledge of what cards are in play and how that changes the odds for a hand it has to be acceptable on some level. There is no benchmark to say where that acceptable level is other than a person’s own moral compass (well, that and I’m sure Vegas could pass on some hard fast rules on how to spot a card counter).

And, I'm sure someone who's good at tracking model interactions, strategic planning, AND able to track up to 108 cards at once should be using those skills in Vegas, rather than at the Malifaux tables. Rain Man would approve.

[icemantis99]

I really hope we don't have to put some long list of "Do's and Do Not's" when it comes to card counting and skirting the border of honest game play, the fact that this thread has turned into a morality debate is a little frightening…at the end of the day, Malifaux is just a game – one that is intended to be enjoyed by all players, including those who can’t count cards.

Card counting is effectively premeasuring your Deck and/or your opponent’s Deck. Some folks excel at guessing distances without the aid of a tape measure, the same goes true for cards (although for me dedicated card counters drift closer to the cheating arena than the ability to eyeball distances well does). If you're bringing an 'aid' to the table (the length of a book off to one side, or your hand span placed strategically during a turn - for measuring; a spreadsheet or some other means of physically tracking cards played (stacking innocuous counters in a certain way off the table, etc) - for counting cards) you've crossed from 'being good at' something to
'exploiting/cheating' it in my book.

That isn't to say folks good at mentally counting cards aren't taking advantage of a system, regardless of what the 'norms' are for that player's local area. But, just like poker, where a good knowledge of what cards are in play and how that changes the odds for a hand it has to be acceptable on some level. There is no benchmark to say where that acceptable level is other than a person’s own moral compass (well, that and I’m sure Vegas could pass on some hard fast rules on how to spot a card counter).

And, I'm sure someone who's good at tracking model interactions, strategic planning, AND able to track up to 108 cards at once should be using those skills in Vegas, rather than at the Malifaux tables. Rain Man would approve.

*applause*

[Justin]

I really hope we don't have to put some long list of "Do's and Do Not's" when it comes to card counting and skirting the border of honest game play, the fact that this thread has turned into a morality debate is a little frightening…at the end of the day, Malifaux is just a game – one that is intended to be enjoyed by all players, including those who can’t count cards.

Card counting is effectively premeasuring your Deck and/or your opponent’s Deck. Some folks excel at guessing distances without the aid of a tape measure, the same goes true for cards (although for me dedicated card counters drift closer to the cheating arena than the ability to eyeball distances well does). If you're bringing an 'aid' to the table (the length of a book off to one side, or your hand span placed strategically during a turn - for measuring; a spreadsheet or some other means of physically tracking cards played (stacking innocuous counters in a certain way off the table, etc) - for counting cards) you've crossed from 'being good at' something to 'exploiting/cheating' it in my book.

That isn't to say folks good at mentally counting cards aren't taking advantage of a system, regardless of what the 'norms' are for that player's local area. But, just like poker, where a good knowledge of what cards are in play and how that changes the odds for a hand it has to be acceptable on some level. There is no benchmark to say where that acceptable level is other than a person’s own moral compass (well, that and I’m sure Vegas could pass on some hard fast rules on how to spot a card counter).

And, I'm sure someone who's good at tracking model interactions, strategic planning, AND able to track up to 108 cards at once should be using those skills in Vegas, rather than at the Malifaux tables. Rain Man would approve.

Some of us just enjoy morality debates.

Next rulebook though, you guys should totally have an entire section on how much card counting is allowed.

[Bigmike]

I really hope we don't have to put some long list of "Do's and Do Not's" when it comes to card counting and skirting the border of honest game play, the fact that this thread has turned into a morality debate is a little frightening…at the end of the day, Malifaux is just a game – one that is intended to be enjoyed by all players, including those who can’t count cards.

Card counting is effectively premeasuring your Deck and/or your opponent’s Deck. Some folks excel at guessing distances without the aid of a tape measure, the same goes true for cards (although for me dedicated card counters drift closer to the cheating arena than the ability to eyeball distances well does). If you're bringing an 'aid' to the table (the length of a book off to one side, or your hand span placed strategically during a turn - for measuring; a spreadsheet or some other means of physically tracking cards played (stacking innocuous counters in a certain way off the table, etc) - for counting cards) you've crossed from 'being good at' something to 'exploiting/cheating' it in my book.

That isn't to say folks good at mentally counting cards aren't taking advantage of a system, regardless of what the 'norms' are for that player's local area. But, just like poker, where a good knowledge of what cards are in play and how that changes the odds for a hand it has to be acceptable on some level. There is no benchmark to say where that acceptable level is other than a person’s own moral compass (well, that and I’m sure Vegas could pass on some hard fast rules on how to spot a card counter).

And, I'm sure someone who's good at tracking model interactions, strategic planning, AND able to track up to 108 cards at once should be using those skills in Vegas, rather than at the Malifaux tables. Rain Man would approve.
My Hero!

[Mr_Smigs]

And Smigs, please, don't use "slippery slope" arguments. It's terrible logic, and it makes my head hurt. "If we do y, what's to stop us from eating babies?" Makes very little sense, and sides, I can use it against you.
"If we don't allow counting cards, why don't we disallow thinking about the batlefield at all?"

gotta draw the line somewhere.

but there we go,
card counting = premeasuring.

Card counting is effectively premeasuring your Deck and/or your opponent’s Deck.

i have to admit, i was kinda distressed when the people who would be in charge of tourneys (henchmen) were talking like this was an acceptable practice.

[Justin]

And Smigs, please, don't use "slippery slope" arguments. It's terrible logic, and it makes my head hurt. "If we do y, what's to stop us from eating babies?" Makes very little sense, and sides, I can use it against you.
"If we don't allow counting cards, why don't we disallow thinking about the batlefield at all?"

The slippery slope argument sometimes has some merit.

To take the baby eating example:

Let's say we were arguing about cooking the babies. Now, once the babies are already cooked, the next logical step is to marinate them. And from there, eating them just makes sense.

Now, if we DIDN'T marinate the babies, we would have an entirely different situation.

[icemantis99]

gotta draw the line somewhere.

but there we go,
card counting = premeasuring.

I have to admit, i was kinda distressed when the people who would be in charge of tourneys (henchmen) were talking like this was an acceptable practice.
Um. No, it's not equal. We never said that. in fact, we really kinda specifically didn't say that. We said something to the effect of "using outside tools to count cards is pretty flagrant cheating, but in the end, it's all up to how you and your opponent(s) play the game; so long as you're having fun, who cares?"

Also, I prefer a slow-roasted baby, myself, usually with a apple-juice/peach nectar marinade. Them's good eatings!

[Justin]

Um. No, it's not equal. We never said that. in fact, we really kinda specifically didn't say that. We said something to the effect of "using outside tools to count cards is pretty flagrant cheating, but in the end, it's all up to how you and your opponent(s) play the game; so long as you're having fun, who cares?"

Also, I prefer a slow-roasted baby, myself, usually with a apple-juice/peach nectar marinade. Them's good eatings!

Surprising thing about babies: good for stew.

It's that baby fat. Just melts into the broth.

It's my personal favorite after a long night of counting cards in games of Malifaux against handicapped orphans.

[icemantis99]

Surprising thing about babies: good for stew.

It's that baby fat. Just melts into the broth.

It's my personal favorite after a long night of counting cards in games of Malifaux against handicapped orphans.
They also make good shoes! That soft spot just cushions your feet like you were walking on a cloud.

[Berman]

Gotta go to K-mart... gottaa get some underwear at K-mart.

[nilus]

Thank you Kelthios for that very concise response.

I just wanted to add that perhaps my intial comment was little overzealous. I was thinking more in terms of card awarness rather then a true card counting system. Although strictly not against the rules I can see where some people would have a problem with it. In thr future I plan to refrain from any comments that might imply I am encouraging the practice.

Peace out everbody. And please stop eating those babies. :)

[icemantis99]

But they is so delicious!

[Justin]

Thank you Kelthios for that very concise response.

I just wanted to add that perhaps my intial comment was little overzealous. I was thinking more in terms of card awarness rather then a true card counting system. Although strictly not against the rules I can see where some people would have a problem with it. In thr future I plan to refrain from any comments that might imply I am encouraging the practice.

Peace out everbody. And please stop eating those babies. :)

The thing about card counting is: it's thinking.

It's in your head.

There is no way a game could or should have a rule, implied or otherwise, against a form of thought. How do you know what people are thinking? How do you even police that?

Sure, having an actual system (which, by the by, traditional black jack systems wouldn't even work for Malifaux) is a whole lot sketchier than just being aware of the cards. But at the same time, they are the exact same principle. And there's no way to police one without policing the other.

The idea of having any sort of rule or trying to call your opponents on counting cards is ridiculous. The only time it would become a problem is if they sit for five minutes in between every. single. decision. But then, I would have a problem with them taking that long no matter what was going through their head.


If babies weren't meant to be eaten, they wouldn't be made out of meat.

[ispep]

The slippery slope argument sometimes has some merit.

To take the baby eating example:

Let's say we were arguing about cooking the babies. Now, once the babies are already cooked, the next logical step is to marinate them. And from there, eating them just makes sense.

Now, if we DIDN'T marinate the babies, we would have an entirely different situation.

You marinate before cooking. Jus' sayin'

[Justin]

You marinate before cooking. Jus' sayin'

Please take your logic and remove it from this thread.

Everyone else has had the courtesy to do so.

[MarkNorfolk]

I thought the only people who thought card counting was cheating were people who owned casinos. It's just being very good at the game, and are you supposed to forget every card you flipped already?

And also, I don't think it would work to well for this game, what with two decks, the Control Hands and the stats of the models.

Sausages are best. Perhaps with a mild mustard.

Cheers
Mark

[DangerousBeans]

I never count cards, to be honest the thought never even entered my mind. Obviously I'll keep track mentally that I've flipped a lot of high numbers or low numbers so know roughly what to expect but I'm a great one for living in hope so I'll usually just go for it anyway.

In casual play, I might let someone use some form of app. It'd be interesting to see if it made a difference. Personally I think if you were doing so it would take a lot of fun out of the game and might disincline you to go for a "make or break" moment, which are always fun no matter the outcome.

I definitely think it's a no-go for tournaments though, unless there was some form of clause to allow the opponent of the app user to spit peas into their face (or some other method of distraction).

Also Lalo, your banter is amazing!

[AvatarForm]

The thing about card counting is: it's thinking.

It's in your head.

There is no way a game could or should have a rule, implied or otherwise, against a form of thought. How do you know what people are thinking? How do you even police that?

Sure, having an actual system (which, by the by, traditional black jack systems wouldn't even work for Malifaux) is a whole lot sketchier than just being aware of the cards. But at the same time, they are the exact same principle. And there's no way to police one without policing the other.

The idea of having any sort of rule or trying to call your opponents on counting cards is ridiculous. The only time it would become a problem is if they sit for five minutes in between every. single. decision. But then, I would have a problem with them taking that long no matter what was going through their head.


If babies weren't meant to be eaten, they wouldn't be made out of meat.

+1

"Hey, look! It's another Mr_Smigs' Moral Dictionary Vs icemantis99 thread"

...and yet again icemantis99 trumps the field with commons sense and gaming etiquette...

[icemantis99]

... We should promote these things like boxing matches.
Smigs, Mama said knock you out!

[Bigmike]

hmm this thread was making me angry, now i'm just hungry.

[RisingPhoenix]

The slippery slope argument sometimes has some merit.

To take the baby eating example:

Let's say we were arguing about cooking the babies. Now, once the babies are already cooked, the next logical step is to marinate them. And from there, eating them just makes sense.

Now, if we DIDN'T marinate the babies, we would have an entirely different situation.

Not to take a humorous comment too seriously, but the slippery slope argument has merit when it's an actual logical chain.

You can demonstrate WHY cooking something logically leads to the conclusion that it will be eaten. You can demonstrate that there are dozens of recipes that involve marination then cooking, you can show that it's a traditional technique, you can point to books that describe why you do that (cooking texts, etc.).

The fallacy kicks in when someone goes "Well if we do X, then obviously Y will be okay, therefore we shouldn't do X because Y is very bad." The key is there is no explanation of why Y follows from X, except that "it does."

[AvatarForm]

Not to take a humorous comment too seriously, but the slippery slope argument has merit when it's an actual logical chain.

You can demonstrate WHY cooking something logically leads to the conclusion that it will be eaten.

Occasionally, I cook a full meal to walk past homeless people eating it. I then choose the 2 largest specimens and throw the remainder on the ground between them to watch them fight over it...

Also, icemantis99 "Im gonna make orphans of his children" was my favourite... and if all else fails you can bite off his ear.

[quotemyname]

Okay, so here it is:

I started this thread to inquire about card counting tactics.

This thread was never about whether it should allowed or not.
This thread was never about other forms of cheating.
This thread was not intended to be a morality debate.

Those are all separate issues. Can we please keep them that way? I apologize for getting involved in that discussion in the first place as it forced this thread even further off topic.

I'd rather not see any more comments about what methods of cheating should and should not be allowed. I'd rather not see any more discussions about whether card counting itself is cheating. While these are valid issues, they are not the reason this thread was started.

So please, let's get back to business: Eating Babies...*Ahem*... I mean Counting Cards: How do you do it?

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

So please, let's get back to business: Eating Babies...*Ahem*... I mean Counting Cards: How do you do it?
Easy.

You don't do it here.

If you need to find ways to count cards, which in my own view is cheating, then you should look elsewhere on how to do so.

I'm sure you can find how-to guides for this sort of shenanigans somewhere on the internet.

[quotemyname]

Fair enough.

Sounds like this thread is a wrap then.

Thanks to everyone for your participation. You can send me a private message if you want to discuss this further, or want to send me your ideas.

[AvatarForm]

Some of the earlier posts considered counting cards to be similar to working out your remaining chances or the risk involved in certain paths/actions with what you already knew was drawn.

This is a subjective issue and card counting is being done by all players to varying degrees. Surely, some have compiled impressive equations to go by, whilst others simply go with how they 'feel' based upon guestimation.

I think we should leave it at that... afterall think of the children!

(The sweet, sweet children... REMEMBER: Marinade before cooking:eating:)

[Justin]

Not to take a humorous comment too seriously, but the slippery slope argument has merit when it's an actual logical chain.

You can demonstrate WHY cooking something logically leads to the conclusion that it will be eaten. You can demonstrate that there are dozens of recipes that involve marination then cooking, you can show that it's a traditional technique, you can point to books that describe why you do that (cooking texts, etc.).

The fallacy kicks in when someone goes "Well if we do X, then obviously Y will be okay, therefore we shouldn't do X because Y is very bad." The key is there is no explanation of why Y follows from X, except that "it does."

Yes, indeed, I agree.

Which was sort of the point of that post.

I say "sort of" because, well, you read it...


Also Lalo, your banter is amazing!

Oh, well, thanks. :D

[Dire Hoarcat Snuggler]

The slippery slope argument sometimes has some merit.

To take the baby eating example:

Let's say we were arguing about cooking the babies. Now, once the babies are already cooked, the next logical step is to marinate them. And from there, eating them just makes sense.

Now, if we DIDN'T marinate the babies, we would have an entirely different situation.

Wouldn't you marinate the babies, THEN cook them? (and now I'm not reading subsequent text and hoping I didn't get ninja'd on this!)

~J~

[Dire Hoarcat Snuggler]

And now for a serious post... I have two thoughts regarding card counting:

1) Working out your likelihood of certain risks/benefits by figuring out what is likely to come up in the deck is not dissimilar from the overall spirit of the game - the whole meta' of this game is geared around assessing risk and taking risk, so you SHOULD get good at this!

2) Deliberately stacking the deck using MIT-grade card counting / David Copperfield shenanigans should be strongly discouraged (with vicious beatings, using rusty pieces of rebar). This is specifically against the friendly nature of the game, and the rule that allows your opponent to cut your deck (if honesty wasn't enough). Otherwise, why bother with characters such as Leviticus (who DOES stack his deck), or Zoraida (with her two-card) when you could just shuffle in the right way to win? If you can't reliably figure out your risks and BUDGET your control hand, you're not a good Malifaux player. Counting-based deck stacking or top-decking does not in any way employ an assessment of in-game risk, so much as it demonstrates your cowardice, or ironically enough, your lack of confidence in your own mathematical gaming skills.

OK done.
~J~

[RisingPhoenix]

And now for a serious post... I have two thoughts regarding card counting:

1) Working out your likelihood of certain risks/benefits by figuring out what is likely to come up in the deck is not dissimilar from the overall spirit of the game - the whole meta' of this game is geared around assessing risk and taking risk, so you SHOULD get good at this!

2) Deliberately stacking the deck using MIT-grade card counting / David Copperfield shenanigans should be strongly discouraged (with vicious beatings, using rusty pieces of rebar). This is specifically against the friendly nature of the game, and the rule that allows your opponent to cut your deck (if honesty wasn't enough). Otherwise, why bother with characters such as Leviticus (who DOES stack his deck), or Zoraida (with her two-card) when you could just shuffle in the right way to win? If you can't reliably figure out your risks and BUDGET your control hand, you're not a good Malifaux player. Counting-based deck stacking or top-decking does not in any way employ an assessment of in-game risk, so much as it demonstrates your cowardice, or ironically enough, your lack of confidence in your own mathematical gaming skills.

OK done.
~J~

The MIT card counters never did one thing to alter the top card of the deck in any way. They never did one thing to change the order the cards showed up in.

All they did was calculate odds based on what they had seen on the table. That's it.

Some people seem to think that's cheating. I imagine if they had seen 51 cards of the deck without seeing the red joker that that would influence their actions.

[allan255]

Card counting ... hmm i guess that if i count more than two of the same card, i'll ask my opponent to check his deck :stupido2:

[karn987]

Honestly, I view card counting beyond the basic trying to remember what cards you used (which everyone does) as cheating. It's giving you an unfair advantage and honestly, if your trying to be a fair and honest player, why would you ever do this?

[RisingPhoenix]

Honestly, I view card counting beyond the basic trying to remember what cards you used (which everyone does) as cheating. It's giving you an unfair advantage and honestly, if your trying to be a fair and honest player, why would you ever do this?
Because there's nothing dishonest about it? Everyone tries to figure out whether or not their action will work. When someone has flipped 3 queens, 2 kings, and 3 jacks, before they're half way down the deck, you can't tell me that they don't take that into account when they need Severe Damage. You can't tell me people don't remember the fact that they've only hit those twice by half way mark, and make flips 'expecting' that they'll get it.

That's card counting. It's not very good card counting, but it's definitely counting. Most people LIKE that aspect of Malifaux. They LIKE the fact that if you're having a run of bad luck you raise your chances of hitting a run of good luck (unlike dice games where you can just have an entire turn go pear shaped). And most everyone counts cards. Just poorly.

[Raintar]

How is counting cards dishonest? For it to work well, you would have to already have flipped a good amount of low cards, and based on flipping those low cards you would know because of card counting that there would be alot of higher cards in the deck. You should generally be able to figure that out without specifically counting cards, but counting each one would definitely allow you to better know what's in your deck.

And still even with that if you have a very high count you could still flip low for an important thing you need to do so it really doesn't mean alot anyway.

[Zethal]

Honestly, I view card counting beyond the basic trying to remember what cards you used (which everyone does) as cheating. It's giving you an unfair advantage and honestly, if your trying to be a fair and honest player, why would you ever do this?

Beyond what RisingPhoenix said, at this point you are defining every aspect of skill as dishonest. One player being better at something is what you've just defined as an unfair advantage.

Good poker player's know the odds of an winning with their hand, good Warhammer players know how many expected wounds they are doing with a given round of combat as well as the standard deviations. Card counting in this way is the same thing, knowing your odds.

As for devices that count cards for you...well all games are tests of skill. Different games test different skills. If you want one of the skills for Malifaux to be figuring out odds in your head then using a device that would do that for you is cheating. If you think playing Malifaux should not include a skill relating figuring out odds inf your head then using a device is perfectly legitimate.

It is absurd to think that players aren't going to pay attention to their cards and plan some things accordingly. Even players that aren't very good at counting are just about always going to know of the Red and Black Joker have come up for them that round. What should be decided is if Malifaux should be testing card counting as a skill or not. And IMO, yes. Its a skill of the game and something that should separate good players from bad, and thus using a device to assist you with that skill is then by definition as cheating.

[karn987]

Because there's nothing dishonest about it? Everyone tries to figure out whether or not their action will work. When someone has flipped 3 queens, 2 kings, and 3 jacks, before they're half way down the deck, you can't tell me that they don't take that into account when they need Severe Damage. You can't tell me people don't remember the fact that they've only hit those twice by half way mark, and make flips 'expecting' that they'll get it.

That's card counting. It's not very good card counting, but it's definitely counting. Most people LIKE that aspect of Malifaux. They LIKE the fact that if you're having a run of bad luck you raise your chances of hitting a run of good luck (unlike dice games where you can just have an entire turn go pear shaped). And most everyone counts cards. Just poorly.

You misunderstood what I meant. There is a way to take it way to far (like writing down all the cards seen etc). That is what I'm saying is cheating and unfair. Those exceptional cases.

I even said what most people do is fine, which is trying to remember what they have seen. I do that, everyone I know does that. It's the techniques for doing this that your opponent may not also be armed with that bother me. That and shuffling techniques to stack your deck, they bug the heck out of me because as I see it, it's basically cheating.

But this is my opinion on the matter.

[karn987]

Beyond what RisingPhoenix said, at this point you are defining every aspect of skill as dishonest. One player being better at something is what you've just defined as an unfair advantage.

Good poker player's know the odds of an winning with their hand, good Warhammer players know how many expected wounds they are doing with a given round of combat as well as the standard deviations. Card counting in this way is the same thing, knowing your odds.

As for devices that count cards for you...well all games are tests of skill. Different games test different skills. If you want one of the skills for Malifaux to be figuring out odds in your head then using a device that would do that for you is cheating. If you think playing Malifaux should not include a skill relating figuring out odds inf your head then using a device is perfectly legitimate.

It is absurd to think that players aren't going to pay attention to their cards and plan some things accordingly. Even players that aren't very good at counting are just about always going to know of the Red and Black Joker have come up for them that round. What should be decided is if Malifaux should be testing card counting as a skill or not. And IMO, yes. Its a skill of the game and something that should separate good players from bad, and thus using a device to assist you with that skill is then by definition as cheating.

I said beyond the basic counting that people do. Go ahead and look at the post, that's what I stated and what your saying I'm against. Its something everyone is going to do nearly automatically.

What I don't like are the extreme cases (people writing down the cards they flipped, etc). That and people who trick shuffle their deck to stack it.

I think I just realized why there is a divide in this thread, I think peoples view on what Card Counting is are different. That would certainly explain a lot. I know I'm viewing it as something some what different from what a few people are seeing it as.

But there is little point to continuing this argument.

[Zethal]

I said beyond the basic counting that people do. Go ahead and look at the post, thats what I stated and what your saying I'm against. Its a great skill to have if you can keep track of all the cards that have come up.

My mistake, I assumed basic card counting meant passively noticing that cards of have up vs actively counting them in your head. Not that you are opposed to devices that assist the counting.

[RisingPhoenix]

I think I just realized why there is a divide in this thread, I think peoples view on what Card Counting is are different. That would certainly explain a lot. I know I'm viewing it as something some what different from what a few people are seeing it as.

But there is little point to continuing this argument.
Argh! There is only ONE definition of Card Counting. Card counting is a defined as a memory system for what cards have been revealed from a deck, used to calculate probabilities of card flips.

Anything else is just nonsense. Stacking your deck is cheating, you alter probabilities. You alter NOTHING by card counting. You just learn what the actual probabilities are.

[Peterdita]

Rrrrraaarr!

[Hogwart]

Just thought I would add my 2 cents here, and I am in no way intending to flame anyone.

1. If I caught someone blatantly cheating in a game I was playing (mark cards, stacking the deck), they may have walked to the game table but they'd be limping away from it.

2. While it is not technically cheating, keeping written tallies or I-pod tallies of cards is not only ridiculous but a sign of a poor player and I would ask that they stop or request their disqualification.

3. If a person wants to try to keep track of cards in their head or use a probability system in their head that's fine by me, but I think they are missing some simple math: Game = Fun.

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

Just thought I would add my 2 cents here, and I am in no way intending to flaming anyone.

1. If I caught someone blatantly cheating in a game I was playing (mark cards, stacking the deck), they may have walked to the game table but they'd be limping away from it.

2. While it is not technically cheating, keeping written tallies or I-pod tallies of cards is not only ridiculous but a sign of a poor player and I would ask that they stop or request their disqualification.

3. If a person wants to try to keep track of cards in their head or use a probability system in their head that's fine by me, but I think they are missing some simple math: Game = Fun.
Well said.

All except the possible physical violence part. ;)

[Hogwart]

Sorry, I have anger issues. But, the doctors say the new meds are helping...lol:fisheye:

[Whatsicle]

@Hogwart

Yes.

I think that sums it up.

-

While card counting (defined as the deliberate system of + / - in your head to determine probability after each flipped card, and not as 'I've flipped a lot of high/low cards this turn I'll probably start doing poorly/better now') may not technically be against the rules, it could definitely be considered poor sportsmanship for casual play. That said, I think it'll probably happen quite a bit at tourneys.. just not out loud.

On the other hand, if someone is going to the effort of writing down each and every card as it occurs... that is blatant cheating. Page 34 of the original book states you may not look through your or your opponent's discard pile - what is writing down cards as you play them but looking through your discard pile, albeit without actually touching the cards?

[Zethal]

3. If a person wants to try to keep track of cards in their head or use a probability system in their head that's fine by me, but I think they are missing some simple math: Game = Fun.

I think you are unaware that people have different feelings on what fun means then you do.

I enjoy being good at a game, I enjoy thinking about strategy and tactics, mastering the game-play and really engrossing myself in the skills of the game. I enjoy playing my best game and playings against the best opponents I can find.

Fun for me != limiting my ability or my opponents because I'm lazy/inept/apathetic.

[quotemyname]

Zethal, thank you for using the correct "does not equal" operator ("!=" and not "=/="). My inner programmer cringes every time someone screws that up.

Hogwart says that "Game=Fun". Zethal argues that "fun" means different things to different people. I think the bottom line here is that you should be having fun. No matter what your own personal definition of fun is. If each player is not having fun, something needs to change.

[Zethal]

Zethal, thank you for using the correct "does not equal" operator ("!=" and not "=/="). My inner programmer cringes every time someone screws that up. Quite welcome.


No matter what your own personal definition of fun is. If each player is not having fun, something needs to change.
Aye, it's just becomes difficult when the two are mutually exclusive.

[AvatarForm]

I cant believe you guys are still whipping this horse... the Marshal stepped in pages ago.

[Justin]

... the Marshal stepped in pages ago.

And gave his opinion like everyone else...

This isn't the kind of thing a ruling is any real good for.

That said, I doubt there's much to say that hasn't been discussed, but whatevs.

[Q'iq'el]

Zethal, thank you for using the correct "does not equal" operator ("!=" and not "=/="). My inner programmer cringes every time someone screws that up.

It's called different notation. Nothing incorrect about it.

[Hogwart]

@ Zethal

I too very much enjoy mastering the game including thinking up new strategy, synergy, and tactics for dealing with each other crew. I think this is time better spent than learning to count cards or figuring up a porbability system. And while you are right that fun is not always the same thing for everyone, most will agree that card counting and proabability calculation in your head is a sign of a poor player and that usually means their opponent is not going to have fun. To paraphrase Quotemyname, if both players are not having fun then there is a problem. While it's fine to be competitive ( believe me I am), it's not fun to play a power gaming, poor sport. Everyone knows the guy I'm talking about. He always brings the cheese list to the tourney and argues every rule. If you do something cool and amazing, he wants to see the rule that lets you and pouts and complains when you show him your right. That's the same guy that would count cards.

BTW, I am gonna ignore the "lazy/inept/apathetic" comment cause you don't know me so I am gonna assume that it wasn't directed at me.

[Ciaran]

Hogwart: I disagree with part of what you're saying. "Rules lawyers" and "card counters" are NOT always the same people. I keep a rudimentary idea of what I've flipped. I don't forget every card in my discard pile. I am performing a basic form of card counting. I'm also an incredibly gracious player (and I'm quite humble too!) who would rather lose than take advantage of another player's unfamiliarity with the rules. I'm the guy that does an after action with his opponents to let them know what he saw during their game to help them improve their game over time.

Being lumped in with a cheesy, nasty player is unfair to my mind.

[quotemyname]

It's called different notation. Nothing incorrect about it.

Tell that to my SYNTAX ERROR AT TOKEN "/" REMOVE THIS TOKEN *Ahem* Sorry about that...


I cant believe you guys are still whipping this horse... the Marshal stepped in pages ago.

I think AvatarForm has a point, people. We're just arguing back and forth now. I don't know that there are really any other opinions to be discussed here. We've covered both sides of the morality issue, and whether it should or should not be allowed, etc. If you have something NEW to bring to the table, that's fine. But if not, maybe we should call it /thread?

[Zethal]

I too very much enjoy mastering the game including thinking up new strategy, synergy, and tactics for dealing with each other crew. I think this is time better spent than learning to count cards or figuring up a porbability system.
And the people who want to spend time doing both, the competitive players, are so how at fault because their opponents do not invest that time?


And while you are right that fun is not always the same thing for everyone, most will agree that card counting and proabability calculation in your head is a sign of a poor player and that usually means their opponent is not going to have fun.Besides that appeals to popularity (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html) are fallacious arguments I think this thread sufficiently shows that your assumption of what most people will agree its a sign of a '*poor player' is wrong.

*I assume by poor play you mean one that you consider to be a bad sport, not one that is bad at the game. As then we have to debate your definition of poor player.



To paraphrase Quotemyname, if both players are not having fun then there is a problem. While it's fine to be competitive ( believe me I am), it's not fun to play a power gaming, poor sport. Everyone knows the guy I'm talking about. He always brings the cheese list to the tourney and argues every rule. If you do something cool and amazing, he wants to see the rule that lets you and pouts and complains when you show him your right. That's the same guy that would count cards.Straw Men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) aren't going to get you anywhere either.

We are talking about card counting, not people who conveniently only remember the rules when the rules help them.

Beyond that I'll again refer to the Playing to Win (http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html) article. That you use the terms 'cheesy lists' and 'power gaming' suggests that you don't understand the arguments from my side of this issue at all. And knowing the rules of the game is not something to be looking down upon.



BTW, I am gonna ignore the "lazy/inept/apathetic" comment cause you don't know me so I am gonna assume that it wasn't directed at me.It wasn't an attack on anyone. I was just stating the realistic reasons why people don't get good at games.

I'm learning Go but I'm not great at it and I'm certainly not putting a lot of time into mastering it. Which is due to my own apathy and laziness towards Go.

I'm a mediocre poker player, again largely due to laziness and apathy, but I don't go to poker leagues and poker tournaments and then complain that I come against against players who actually care about learning the game at it's highest level and being great at it. And doing so with Malifaux or any other game is just as absurd.

[Daniele]

I think as it is still a game: Have fun or else dunp it.

[Ciaran]

Daniele: That raises a question. Do you consider someone that plays to win someone that doesn't also play for fun?

[Daniele]

Nope, I think when you can't have fun without winning, it's time to stop gaming :o
There are people who can only feel fun when they win. But i actually do not. Having a good time while playing should be the goal. When you win it should be an addition but not the only reason for playing at all.

I'm in tabletopping since 1997 and I met lots of people in this time. Some really great matches with whom you could have the greatest time, even when losing, others who were so fixed on winning that you could only feel pity for them.

Out there are all the kinds of players imaginable, so as i play it as a game to relax and have a good time prefer players from that mental area over those winning junkies, you see?

What i meant with my post originally:
Play with the guys or girls that prefer the same aspects of the game.

Although i'd say that counting cards kinda brings the game to a level that can't be fun (or neccessary).

My opinion, only :)
As everyone can imagine it is impossible to bring this discussion to an end that everyone will be pleased with. It's as old as gaming itself.

[RisingPhoenix]

Nope, I think when you can't have fun without winning, it's time to stop gaming :o
There are people who can only feel fun when they win. But i actually do not. Having a good time while playing should be the goal. When you win it should be an addition but not the only reason for playing at all.

I'm in tabletopping since 1997 and I met lots of people in this time. Some really great matches with whom you could have the greatest time, even when losing, others who were so fixed on winning that you could only feel pity for them.

I play to win. Period. I test what I'm doing. I develop strategies to win the game. I think up ways to eliminate my opponents models and reduce their strategic options. I find ways to counter their strategies.

I have a great time when I'm losing. A battle between two people who have pushed themselves to the max is a thousand times more intricate and interesting than one between two players who barely understand the system. There's interactions and plays that I haven't found yet. They'll be really, really cool when I do. And probably pretty powerful. And seeing something that hits you out of left field is cool to.

I'll turn this around: You don't like the game. You like having a drink with friends while having nice painted minis to look at. Maybe you should just go to an art gallery with a flask?

Or maybe you should stop setting yourself up as some arrogant gatekeeper who thinks they have the right to tell others that they can or can't play the game?

[nilus]

Or maybe you should stop setting yourself up as some arrogant gatekeeper who thinks they have the right to tell others that they can or can't play the game?

Man do I need to point to this thread again

http://www.wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15598

Your argument, no matter how clear and concise, loses almost its whole value when you start calling people names.

[Ciaran]

Whoa, that might have been a bit harsh at the end. Being able to have an honest conversation is far more informative than slinging insults around to my mind...

I started gaming in 1983. I picked up table top stuff sometimes around 1991. As I'm 34 that means I've a significant portion of my life wrapped up in gaming of all sorts. I've seen people that are happiest when the win, happiest when they're challenged win or lose, just happy to play.

The ones I don't like are the ones that are the ones that get nasty to people when they either lose or otherwise feel threatened. Some people end up wrapping up a lot of their egos in their games, and that just seems dangerous to me.

[Zethal]

Man do I need to point to this thread again

http://www.wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15598

Your argument, no matter how clear and concise, loses almost its whole value when you start calling people names.

It doesn't actually. Not that its ok to be name calling, but that doesn't make an argument invalid. And suggesting so is disingenuous.

And its not like his reaction was entirely unprovoked. Calling a category of people pitiful and suggesting that people who play competitively have some sort of fetish for winning is often going to get a strong emotional retort from that category. I think Daniele meant to state something other than was is easy to infer from her words, but the post was not very articulate either so...

[Ciaran]

Zethal, from an emotional standpoint the delivery of a message is every bit as important as its content. When the delivery is emotionally charged it tends to cause the recipient to ignore the message entirely.

Perhaps a bit of leeway might be afforded someone whose first language doesn't appear to be English yet is trying pretty diligently to be a contributing voice in what is unfortunately often getting pulled into the trite and tired despite its potential for being a great discussion.

[Zethal]

Zethal, from an emotional standpoint the delivery of a message is every bit as important as its content. When the delivery is emotionally charged it tends to cause the recipient to ignore the message entirely.We are getting way off topic here as we aren't discussing the nature of discourse...but simply because a rhetorical device prevents some people from reading it, due letting their emotions overrule their critical thinking, does not devalue nor create a lack of validity in a argument. It simply has a negative rhetorical effect on the audience.

If Nilus had stated "Your argument, no matter how clear and concise, is much harder to respect or care about for me when you start calling people names" he would of been logically true while also getting his point across. It is also more likely to influence someone's behavior as it is logically consistent; as humans have a tendency to find arguments that are logically invalid but phrased as valid to be an attempt to control us. Which we don't like and generally react very poorly to.

[RisingPhoenix]

Can anyone else think how to phrase it? Gatekeeper?

He is literally telling people not to play the game if they won't play the way he likes to play. Like literally. Quit. Don't buy models. Don't paint them. Don't play with him. Don't play with anyone he knows. Don't play with anyone he doesn't know. Just go somewhere else and do something else.

I think "Arrogant Gatekeeper" is entirely apt description of that attitude. Trust me, were I trying to be actually insulting, I could think of much, much worse.

As for name calling, he called people who actually try to win when they play a competitive game "Junkies" and "pitiful." That? That would be actual namecalling.

[WEiRD sKeTCH]

Lets get back on the topic, please. Or the thread will close

[icemantis99]

Can anyone else think how to phrase it? Gatekeeper?

He is literally telling people not to play the game if they won't play the way he likes to play. Like literally. Quit. Don't buy models. Don't paint them. Don't play with him. Don't play with anyone he knows. Don't play with anyone he doesn't know. Just go somewhere else and do something else.

I think "Arrogant Gatekeeper" is entirely apt description of that attitude. Trust me, were I trying to be actually insulting, I could think of much, much worse.

As for name calling, he called people who actually try to win when they play a competitive game "Junkies" and "pitiful." That? That would be actual namecalling.
Listen. Easiest rule to debate is "don't get upset". No matter what your opponent says, no matter what they call you, don't retort on the same level. Stick to your original arguments, counter what actual points they bring up, and ignore any personal attacks. You look a lot smarter when you're speaking calmly and your opponent is shouting.
Anyways, +1 to closing thread. We've stopped talking about counting cards pages ago.

[Ciaran]

Card counting: We've seen one solid technique in the past ten pages. Is there another that might be as easy to impart?

At what point does it move from "I have an idea of what I've played." to "I'm a cheater because I mentally track the probability of getting the numerical cards I need." in your minds?

[Daniele]

I totally respect other views on gaming than my own (but sadly, you seem to have a problem with other opinions RisingPhoenix).
I never meant to insult anybody who wants to play hard. I just said it's more interesting for gamers that want to max out their play if they have a gaming partner who thinks the same way ;)

This has nothing to do with being arrogant or telling others to play my way. I never said that, i said I prefer to play with people that have the same interest in the game as I do.

You actually said the same thing, only that you are more the kind of power gamer and I'm more casual. No problems there, I guess.

And having an easy time playing doensn't neccessarily mean that you don't think or don't build strategies. We're not playing Yatzee here (not just because it's no dice game).
I think on strategies as well but I wouldn't try count cards to foresee what cards my opponent might play next. I'd rather focus on setting up my crew on the terrain to optimize my chances.

Anyways the cards are shuffled so many times during a game that i can't imagine how counting cards really imporves your chances :o

But if I have offended anybody with my previous statement, I apologize for it.
But counting cards comes quite close to manipulating dice to win in other games... if you want to play a game with no random factor at all I'd recommend checkers :)

Sorry for disturbing your discussion.

[Justin]

But counting cards comes quite close to manipulating dice to win in other games... if you want to play a game with no random factor at all I'd recommend checkers :)

Totally ignoring whatever else is going on...

This, I think, is the common misconception that leads to the whole debate.

Counting cards is in no way comparable to dice manipulation.

Counting cards does not make the game less random.

All that counting cards does is allow you to understand the probabilities. With dice, probabilities are very easy to understand. Dice have six sides, and you don't have to deal with changing probability. The ability to understand the probabilities surrounding them is so simple that it's implicit. "Should I take the armor save on the guy who will make it on a 2 or higher or a 3 or higher? Hmm, I think I'll take it on the guy with a 2 or higher, as he has better odds of living." That scenario is analogous to card counting, or as analogous as you're going to get in a dice game anyway.

Dice manipulation is more akin to physically stacking or marking the deck, which is an entirely different discussion all together.

Card counting will NEVER give you a certain answer as to exactly which card will be flipped, unless there is only one card left in the deck. And who among you, having flipped 53 cards without seeing the red joker, would ignore the fact that the last card must be the red joker? That is the prime example of card counting.

Now, there are some rare situations in which every single card left in the deck gives you a favorable outcome. But in those situations one of two things is occurring:

A) You are performing an action with a ridiculously low cost. (example: you only fail on the black joker, you already flipped the black joker, you know you will succeed)

B) You had a HORRIBLE turn up to that point and are probably losing anyway, as you apparently flipped nothing but low cards for most of the turn.

B is the only situation in which card counting might be construed as unfair. And in that situation, well, you're probably boned anyway. Also, B would be obvious even on an intuitive level. Without a mathematical system to tell you that the last 12 cards were 11s or higher, an average player could probably still figure out, "Huh, there aren't many cards left. I haven't seen higher than a 10 this whole turn. I guess they must be in there." Which is, in itself, rudimentary card counting.

Card counting gets its bad rap from Vegas, where the casinos have a vested interest in giving it a bad rap. Also, it is most efficiently executed by a group of people. A team, most of whom spread out among the black jack tables and make minimal bets every hand until situation B (described above) happens for one of them. (As it will eventually with enough people. Also black jack players don't stop to move models around, so they tend to go through cards faster). So, eventually one of the decks gets to a point where all the cards are favorable. At this point that team member signals their real player to sit down and tells him the "count" through some covert means. he acts like a high roller and takes the casino to the bank, bouncing from table to table only when the decks are hot.

I think it is obvious why this is seen as unfair, and why card counting has a bad rap. But there is really no comparison between this and Malifaux. You can't signal your friend to randomly take over for you, win for half a turn, and then leave. If your deck gets "hot" it means you sat through a turn of **** pulls. There is no avoiding that. No bouncing from table to table and cashing out when the deck cools off. In Malifaux, you may know the count, but unless you can play the tactical aspect of the game all that it's going to tell you is how likely you are to get ****ed. Which, it turns out, is probably pretty likely.

[Ciaran]

Lalo: At that point isn't counting just another aspect of the tactical game?

I agree completely. It's not manipulating chance, it's keeping an eye on the odds, which IS a lot easier in dice games.

[Justin]

Lalo: At that point isn't counting just another aspect of the tactical game?

I agree completely. It's not manipulating chance, it's keeping an eye on the odds, which IS a lot easier in dice games.

I wouldn't say so, no. But that's purely semantic.

It's kind of hard to phrase this right...

Card counting is nothing but the calculation of the odds. Tactics is the logical application of where those odds are best positioned. They're not really the same skill set at all. One a calculator can do, the other is much more complex.

They are related and should both be used together. And they're both definitely parts of the game. But I wouldn't consider either one an aspect of the other; I see them as separate.

[Ciaran]

Gotcha, I was looking at it from a slightly different angle I think.

Nice to have a thread on track!

[Daniele]

I understand your point. Like that it really has nothing to do with manipulation.
But then again it seems to be just checking whether the jokers are left inside the opposing/won deck. There always stays the uncertainty of the opoonents hand. Even when the really valuable cards haven't been flipped, they could still be there. But then again you can be pretty sure that your opponent has a certain card in his hand when it didn't flip and the deck is reshuffled after being empty.

Nothing requiring a certain technique or something...

Maybe i have over interpreted the intentions when reading "card counting".
I thought you were going for something like cheating-in-Vegas-card-counting, which would be much more of a schience of it's own.

I think everyone tries to keep track of the high cards that have already been flipped or cheated during the game.

But on that view... is it worth a discussion at all?:hmmmm:

[Justin]

I understand your point. Like that it really has nothing to do with manipulation.
But then again it seems to be just checking whether the jokers are left inside the opposing/won deck. There always stays the uncertainty of the opoonents hand. Even when the really valuable cards haven't been flipped, they could still be there. But then again you can be pretty sure that your opponent has a certain card in his hand when it didn't flip and the deck is reshuffled after being empty.

Nothing requiring a certain technique or something...

Maybe i have over interpreted the intentions when reading "card counting".
I thought you were going for something like cheating-in-Vegas-card-counting, which would be much more of a schience of it's own.

I think everyone tries to keep track of the high cards that have already been flipped or cheated during the game.

But on that view... is it worth a discussion at all?:hmmmm:

The only real question is: how good are we allowed to be at card counting?

To put it this way: if you had a photographic memory and could actually remember every card flipped, that would be the best form of card counting possible in Malifaux. (or anything for that matter) All of those Vegas style systems exist precisely because most people don't have memories that good, so a system is easier.

[Morgan Vening]

Card counting could also be limited by use of precursor cards. Start of your turn, shuffle the deck, discard your unwanted, draw up to your control card hand size, and then deal the top X cards from your deck face down into your discard pile.

A good number is probably 6 or 8, and could even be tied to your Hand Size. By being face down, anything more than minor counting becomes irrelevant, because the knowledge won't be able to take those cards into account. With a 6 discard, and 2 cards left in the undrawn, it goes from a 50/50 chance, to a 1/8 chance. If that's the best odds a card counter can expect, it's not likely to be a problem.

I don't have enough experience with the game to know if not running through the full sequence of cards before reshuffling is a problem for the designers, or not, but for the turns where you DON'T run through them all, they all get reshuffled early anyway.

Morgan Vening

[Wodschow]

I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to keep track of the cards in your head..
I mean.. Everyone notices the important ones anyway (Jokers and high suits they'd need for certain spells).

I remember a fair bit of what's gone by subconsciously.. More so than most other I know, I couldn't possibly blame them for using a system to count cards with, and I have no idea as to how I could make myself not notice the cards I flip (other than getting drunk before every game..).


@Lalo: I think agree with you entirely on the matter, but I feel you forgot a few things.

You mention flipping favourable cards as being the only thing you gain from card counting.

For instance: If you've had a blast of a turn with good flips entirely or the enemy have had a real bad turn thus far..
Then you know it's probably best not to move your remaining models in to harms way.


@Morgan: Burning cards is an interesting idea.. Can't help but feel it's kind of an overreaction though.


@quotemyname: Because... Every post on a forum would have to be compilable? I believe none of them are.
=/= is approximately how you'd write it when doing math on the paper so it's a notation that people with no clue about programming should get aswell.

[David.Hanold]

I take my games very seriously,

Card counting is dirty. You want to play dirty by all means do so. But don't complain when players start to break the game or a math wiz with a major photographic memory wins every tourney.

Why would you even want this?...ugh

You are just asking to ruin a game when you look for ways to break it. Players looking for that unbeatable deck and crying about how it make tourneys stale are the number one cause for innovative card games dying.

The main reason you play a game is to have an enjoyable sit down and fair game against the opponent. If your opponent isn't having fun then how can you be? Unless your just being a jerk...but that will eventually net you 0 friends/opponents.

I won't call card counting "cheating" but I will say it is "cheese".

There is a huge difference between a gentlemen's duel and a street brawl but both are competitive fighting styles. Which do you prefer to be a part of? That is the question you must ask yourself.

IMO you will only turn people off this game or scare people from playing it with ridiculous topics like this in the games forum. Funny you want this stickied ... I want this closed asap. I had to convince 3 of the people in my group how hard card counting is in this before they purchased it. If they wonder about it...I am sure other potential customers do too, and the last thing you want them seeing is a topic on card counting.

[David.Hanold]

I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to keep track of the cards in your head..
I mean.. Everyone notices the important ones anyway (Jokers and high suits they'd need for certain spells).

I remember a fair bit of what's gone by subconsciously.. More so than most other I know, I couldn't possibly blame them for using a system to count cards with, and I have no idea as to how I could make myself not notice the cards I flip (other than getting drunk before every game..).

This is fine. Because you are still playing with you and your opponent's enjoyment in mind. You are not trying to break a game and even if you do you haven't revealed the system publicly for how you do it. In other words you are still being a gentleman.

This topic on the other hand is about trying to break the system. The TC is asking for a system...and now we head down a slippery slope. Just like meta in trading card games.

What will happen next is once a system is in place people will start using the system to figure out the best faction and what the best crew will look like...then follows the "THIS UNIT/CREW is OP" and the demand for FAQs and Errata. Then Wyrd has to hold out and hope they have a competitive community by the time the next book (which is now being used for balance rather than fluff and fun) is released. That wouldn't be a factor if the competitive community wasn't so vocal, but that is just the way the gaming community is. The casuals make up the most revenue and are less vocal, but they still read and reflect on the competitive discussions happing in the forums.

[Zethal]

Curator....

There has been pages of discussion about this, it's more then a bit rude to enter the a discussion 12 pages in without reading pretty much any of it.

Every single one of your points has been addressed, most even within the last few pages. It would require many more pages to go through all the arguments and socratic questioning again.

[Justin]

I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to keep track of the cards in your head..
I mean.. Everyone notices the important ones anyway (Jokers and high suits they'd need for certain spells).

I remember a fair bit of what's gone by subconsciously.. More so than most other I know, I couldn't possibly blame them for using a system to count cards with, and I have no idea as to how I could make myself not notice the cards I flip (other than getting drunk before every game..).


@Lalo: I think agree with you entirely on the matter, but I feel you forgot a few things.

You mention flipping favourable cards as being the only thing you gain from card counting.

For instance: If you've had a blast of a turn with good flips entirely or the enemy have had a real bad turn thus far..
Then you know it's probably best not to move your remaining models in to harms way.


@Morgan: Burning cards is an interesting idea.. Can't help but feel it's kind of an overreaction though.


@quotemyname: Because... Every post on a forum would have to be compilable? I believe none of them are.
=/= is approximately how you'd write it when doing math on the paper so it's a notation that people with no clue about programming should get aswell.

Right, this is true.

But the point is: card counting only gives certain outcomes if all the high cards in your deck are in one place.

In which case...your game was going to be pretty weird anyway. And you would have noticed that without even really trying.

[RisingPhoenix]

There's some advantages to be had. Imagine you're playing as Perdita versus Lilith. It's late in the turn, and you have a shot at getting Lilith. You're in a situation where you can sit Perdita tight and gun Lilith, or run away and avoid a Mature that's going to be charging you.

If your deck is positive, and your opponents is negative, you have a much better chance of getting through Lilith's defense then if the reverse is true. This can and will influence your decision making process.

I do like the dice analogy. No one think's its cheesy to know the standard deviations in a dice game, as opposed to just the averages. If you know there's a 40% chance a key vehicle could survive and wreck a squad, you might run them away, even though "on average" they destroy the vehicle.

[Justin]

There's some advantages to be had. Imagine you're playing as Perdita versus Lilith. It's late in the turn, and you have a shot at getting Lilith. You're in a situation where you can sit Perdita tight and gun Lilith, or run away and avoid a Mature that's going to be charging you.

If your deck is positive, and your opponents is negative, you have a much better chance of getting through Lilith's defense then if the reverse is true. This can and will influence your decision making process.

I do like the dice analogy. No one think's its cheesy to know the standard deviations in a dice game, as opposed to just the averages. If you know there's a 40% chance a key vehicle could survive and wreck a squad, you might run them away, even though "on average" they destroy the vehicle.

I'm not saying knowing the odds isn't useful unless you have a guaranteed outcome.

I'm just saying that card counting does not create situations with a guaranteed outcome: those happen on their own, card counting just lets you know that they are there. And, more importantly, that those situations are few and far between. It does not turn the game into checkers.

Knowing the odds of success is always useful, of course. But it strikes me that even the most vehement opponents of counting in this thread have no problem with that, they seem to think that counting actually influences the deck in some way or makes the game "less random." Which it doesn't.

[Q'iq'el]

The bottomline, I think, is that the game already has built-in mechanisms making card-counting not a serious threat to playability. I think Icemantis has already said that early in the thread. At this point, I think, any further "interventions" to make card-counting harder are over-reaction.

So what these mechanisms are?

1. Irregular flip sequence. Unlike most card games where you flip cards in a very strict order, in Malifaux card flips are dictated by the situation on the table. You may think you know how many duels and flips are ahead of you, but one shot into complex melee situation makes you flip several duels worth of cards and completely out of sequence. Never mind an unexpected Terror test or a Morale Duel triggered by Rip in Half-like trigger.

Secondly, Malifaux requires so many flips that even in medium size 35 SS game it isn't unusual to flip through entire deck in one turn. Whenever that happens you reshufle the deck, which means all the previous card counting becomes irrelevant.


2. Soulstones - as long as your opponent has at least one Soulstone left, you can't really predict what numbers he's going to pull. He might have spend that 12 of :crows, but one Soulstone and he effectively ends up with 16 of :crows which isn't even available as a card.


3. Control Hand - Some players spend it whole, some players hold to one or two best cards for the decisive moment. In that later case you can't know what the outcome of the next duel will be. If by any chance your opponent goes through his entire deck and you notice which card he must be holding to, you are still in situation of uncertainty - will he use that card in the next duel? In a way, it's even worse, because now you have to take into consideration possibility of him playing that card you've just guessed in your every duel, which at the very least is resource-intensive, and typically means you will refrain from many, perhaps necessary, actions. (In other words it's like the old joke about GM's computer system calculating costs of future projects, but not the costs of canceling future projects).

This is because the good Hand is not the end on its own, like in most card games, but merely a tool to control situation on the table better. You don't win games by guessing opponent's hands correctly, unlike in many popular card games.


4. All sorts of abilities models have. Even if you remember the opponent has spent all his :masks (however unlikely), you still have to consider the fact he may simply add a :masks to his stats from some other models ability (sure not all models have it). Then there are abilities that buff stats, which change situation on the table without any connection to the Fate Deck.


Sure, some form of card counting gives some small advantage. You can try to guess what cards your opponent is holding to, for example. At the same time you can typically tell if the hand is good by watching them draw it. Heh, there's a lot of people who are virtually telling all their opponents they've got a joker in their hand with their facial expression alone.

The other obvious advantage comes from remembering the cards you've spent yourself. That basically tells you which of your options are still feasible and what do you need to commit to pull them off. Not only I don't think it's a problem, but the game is virtually designed around players doing so and if you're bad at it, you're bad at Malifaux' resources management. That's the skill most people learn and employ without even thinking about it though.

[AvatarForm]

The bottomline, I think, is that the game already has built-in mechanisms making card-counting not a serious threat to playability. I think Icemantis has already said that early in the thread. At this point, I think, any further "interventions" to make card-counting harder are over-reaction.

So what these mechanisms are?

1. Irregular flip sequence. Unlike most card games where you flip cards in a very strict order, in Malifaux card flips are dictated by the situation on the table. You may think you know how many duels and flips are ahead of you, but one shot into complex melee situation makes you flip several duels worth of cards and completely out of sequence. Never mind an unexpected Terror test or a Morale Duel triggered by Rip in Half-like trigger.

Secondly, Malifaux requires so many flips that even in medium size 35 SS game it isn't unusual to flip through entire deck in one turn. Whenever that happens you reshufle the deck, which means all the previous card counting becomes irrelevant.


2. Soulstones - as long as your opponent has at least one Soulstone left, you can't really predict what numbers he's going to pull. He might have spend that 12 of :crows, but one Soulstone and he effectively ends up with 16 of :crows which isn't even available as a card.


3. Control Hand - Some players spend it whole, some players hold to one or two best cards for the decisive moment. In that later case you can't know what the outcome of the next duel will be. If by any chance your opponent goes through his entire deck and you notice which card he must be holding to, you are still in situation of uncertainty - will he use that card in the next duel? In a way, it's even worse, because now you have to take into consideration possibility of him playing that card you've just guessed in your every duel, which at the very least is resource-intensive, and typically means you will refrain from many, perhaps necessary, actions. (In other words it's like the old joke about GM's computer system calculating costs of future projects, but not the costs of canceling future projects).

This is because the good Hand is not the end on its own, like in most card games, but merely a tool to control situation on the table better. You don't win games by guessing opponent's hands correctly, unlike in many popular card games.


4. All sorts of abilities models have. Even if you remember the opponent has spent all his :masks (however unlikely), you still have to consider the fact he may simply add a :masks to his stats from some other models ability (sure not all models have it). Then there are abilities that buff stats, which change situation on the table without any connection to the Fate Deck.


Sure, some form of card counting gives some small advantage. You can try to guess what cards your opponent is holding to, for example. At the same time you can typically tell if the hand is good by watching them draw it. Heh, there's a lot of people who are virtually telling all their opponents they've got a joker in their hand with their facial expression alone.

The other obvious advantage comes from remembering the cards you've spent yourself. That basically tells you which of your options are still feasible and what do you need to commit to pull them off. Not only I don't think it's a problem, but the game is virtually designed around players doing so and if you're bad at it, you're bad at Malifaux' resources management. That's the skill most people learn and employ without even thinking about it though.

BOOYAH!

/thread?

[Ciaran]

Avatar, no. It's not even close.

Q' Nothing you posted makes me think it's not useful to keep a running hi-low count. Suits and the like would be next to impossible for me, having an idea of number ranges would make a lot of sense though.

So with that in mind: I think that the "standard" technique used by Blackjack counting teams might well work, with the exception of having a team to signal a player to hop onto a hot table.

Before I dig up that (easily found) information does anyone have any thoughts as to an actual system to keep track of numeric card ranges?

[Dolomyte]

99% of the people who play malifaux (and people in general) are not mentally capable to count cards.

If you desperately need to learn how to do it, go out and buy one of the many books available about it. or, and this is simple, just google it. It's been stated by the wyrd people they dont want the nuts and bolts of how to do it in this thread, on their boards.

Also, based on the game mechanics of cheating fate, and soulstones, and the importance of suit specific draws, it makes card counting near worthless. It's really only a boon in blackjack. I welcome you to try it in a casino.

[Justin]

99% of the people who play malifaux (and people in general) are not mentally capable to count cards.

This is just blatantly incorrect.

[AvatarForm]

99% of the people who play malifaux (and people in general) are not mentally capable to count cards.

If you desperately need to learn how to do it, go out and buy one of the many books available about it. or, and this is simple, just google it. It's been stated by the wyrd people they dont want the nuts and bolts of how to do it in this thread, on their boards.

Also, based on the game mechanics of cheating fate, and soulstones, and the importance of suit specific draws, it makes card counting near worthless. It's really only a boon in blackjack. I welcome you to try it in a casino.

Im offended by your statement (marked in bold), I believe the majority of Malifaux players would be perfectly able to do so. Afterall, the system works in favour of a higher mental capacity, as opposed to d6 rollers.

However, I agree with the remainder of your post. Particularly the paragraph that recommends not posting How To on these forums.

[AvatarForm]

This is just blatantly incorrect.

You are always one step ahead... Damn you Gadget!

[Dolomyte]

The most successful group of card counters was the MIT 6. The key phrase there, was MIT. how many of you are math geniuses with full scholarships to MIT? Fictionally, you have Rain Man, who was autistic, but his flash of brillaince was ...math. and then you have the hangover, where alan could have also been somewhat autistic.

Other notably succesful card counters (the guy who sued atlantic city) for instance, was tested and proven to have genius level math comprehension.

Sorry, the majority of people on earth, myself included, cannot do math at the speed in which it is required to successfully count cards at vegas. It's probably easier to do in malifaux since there are typically less flips (a standard table seats 8 people, not including splits and the like) but its still really hard.

If your good enough at math to get a scholarship at MIT, or have been tested at genius level, or hell, are autistic, by all means, PM me and I'll pay our trip to Vegas baby.

[Ciaran]

Dolomyte: The math behind it is exceedingly simple, it's quite literally grammar school level. The people that DO count cards at Blackjack tables say that the biggest misconception is that you have to be a math wiz. What made the MIT group so successful at it was they accepted the fact that it only gave them a ONE percent advantage over the house. Over time that added up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

MIT required? Not at all. All it took was the self discipline to put a system in place and actually follow it.

The system MIT used was as simple as: subtract a one for a high card, leave the count alone for mid cards, add a one for low cards, once the count hit a certain number signal the major bettor to swoop in and rake in some cash. Most systems are based on that theory with different spreads.

My communications maintenance MOS in the Marine Corps had harder math than that. Being a Logistics Executive for Target required me to keep multiple running streams of numbers in my head. Neither seemed easy at first, once I practiced a little they became something close to second nature and I could focus on other things while running numbers in the back of my head. The human brain is so incredibly malleable that it starts changing to facilitate new habits and learning within days many times.

Almost anyone CAN do it. Most people would choose not to out of the false belief that they cannot. The initial learning curve would be so rough as to make most people absolutely convinced that only geniuses are capable.

[Justin]

The most successful group of card counters was the MIT 6. The key phrase there, was MIT. how many of you are math geniuses with full scholarships to MIT? Fictionally, you have Rain Man, who was autistic, but his flash of brillaince was ...math. and then you have the hangover, where alan could have also been somewhat autistic.

Other notably succesful card counters (the guy who sued atlantic city) for instance, was tested and proven to have genius level math comprehension.

Sorry, the majority of people on earth, myself included, cannot do math at the speed in which it is required to successfully count cards at vegas. It's probably easier to do in malifaux since there are typically less flips (a standard table seats 8 people, not including splits and the like) but its still really hard.

If your good enough at math to get a scholarship at MIT, or have been tested at genius level, or hell, are autistic, by all means, PM me and I'll pay our trip to Vegas baby.

If your arguments were based on how to count cards, and not on people who counted cards, your argument might be worth listening to. But the system itself is very, very simple. I would actually tell you how, and this post really wouldn't be all that much longer for it, except that marshals have expressly forbidden the process being posted here.

I hear Einstein was great at tying his shoes. Doesn't mean I need his brain to do it.

[Dolomyte]

I concede, your all correct. im wrong, we can all do it.

Let's meet up at the next tourney we are all going to and play some blackjack. I'm willing to let you guys take money from me. Winner's buy drinks though.

[AvatarForm]

I concede, your all correct. im wrong, we can all do it.

Let's meet up at the next tourney we are all going to and play some blackjack. I'm willing to let you guys take money from me. Winner's buy drinks though.

You sound like a guy in brisbane who deliberately comes last in Malifaux events for the Booby Prize, cos its cooler than the trophies...

[Dolomyte]

Realistic, funny, alcholic?

[AvatarForm]

Realistic, funny, alcholic?

None of the above... deliberately losing with the perception that the reward is greater.

[RisingPhoenix]

I concede, your all correct. im wrong, we can all do it.

Let's meet up at the next tourney we are all going to and play some blackjack. I'm willing to let you guys take money from me. Winner's buy drinks though.

Sure, as long as you're willing to spend enough hands to assure us that 1% odds get there.

Or use one deck. Hell, lets just play 1 deck blackjack no reshuffle, you be dealer, I'll buy you drinks.

[Finklehelm]

Are the rules prescriptive about stacking your discard pile so that cards under the top card cannot be seen? If not, a simple card counting scheme with your discard pile gets very easy.

[Gentleman J]

OK, skipping right past the controversies and having never played a game of Malifaux, card counting relies on a huge number of trials and small percentage benefits over a long period of time in Vegas. The best card counters in the world MIGHT get 5% ahead of the house across every game they play. The big deal is that when they're at a big advantage that $5 bet suddenly becomes a $10,000 bet. In other words, Vegas card counting means very little 99% of the time but capitalizes hugely on that other 1%. In Malifaux, you may well find its not worth the effort required for the benefit of knowing that three actions every five or six games will be shoe-ins.

Here's some basic thoughts and some basic math on how to deal with it:

Your deck has 54 cards.
Not counting jokers, the average card value is 7.
13/54 (24.01%) of the cards are of any given suit.

So two VERY dirt simple, very rough things you can track are high/low and whether a given suit has shown up more or less than it is likely to. You can also keep track of jokers, of course but that's hardly counting.

Every time you see a card worth 8 or more modify your count by -1. Every time you see a card of 6 or less, modify by +1. You count can (in theory) be anywhere between -24 and 24 but is likely to hover around 0.

At +/-4 the odds move from 50% to 54.5%. to At +/-8 the odds have moved from 50/50 to 62.5%. At +/-12, the odds are 66%. Unless you're very deep into a heavily stacked deck, this is not likely to matter much. Shy of +7 or so its less than a 10% bonus. This could probably be tuned based on an important target number but the odds would have to be recalculated. If you're really on the ball you could also track your opponent's cards.

Suits might be easier to track. Keep track of the number of cards you've seen (your hand plus discard) and the number of a given suit you've seen. The math is somewhat tricky and I'm sure there's a shortcut but its late so here's what I've got.
Subtract number of a given suit seen from 13
subtract number of total cards seen from 54
This gives you a ratio that you can turn into a rough percentage and that's your odds of getting that suit on your next flip.

One thing: don't forget your hand!

[Morgan Vening]

Here's some basic thoughts and some basic math on how to deal with it:
The problem I see with the math (and I may be seriously wrong), is that the single deck of Malifaux throws those numbers around too much to be useful. At +/-8, you state it goes from a 50% to a 62.5% chance. If that's after 8 cards, maybe. But if you've blown through 30 cards during the turn, plus the 6 in hand, those numbers change drastically.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the restriction on looking through the discard, as long as the order isn't changed (for stuff like Zoraida's Crystal Ball), with the caveat that it not be 'abused'. Obviously, with abuse being so subjective, I don't blame Wyrd for doing it the way they have, but as long as it doesn't slow the game down any, if my opponent wanted to (and afforded me similar opportunities), I don't have a problem.

The one thing I'm curious to know, is how often people think card counting has a qualitative effect on a game. With such a relatively diverse range of numbers, and with some base instinctuals (Have seen eight of the 'picture' cards and the RJ in the first 10 cards+hand, know the odds of another is small), how often is a player going to make a conscious choice to do an action or not do an action, based on an accurate card count? You've done the math, and you know that there's a 60% chance of getting off your uber-spell of power. Do you not try it? What about 50%? 40%? At what point do you definitively say "I'm going to change my gameplan, and not activate this model, or not do that action, because the odds aren't good"?

Gentleman J mentions in Blackjack it's the one hand in one hundred that makes all the difference, which is when you change the stakes. The difference between BlackJack and Malifaux in this context, is that during a given game, there's probably only a handful of actions per game that would have a similar context. Example, your last activation for the turn is an Executioner in melee range of a Rotten Belle. You know that the count is fairing poorly (but not critically) in your favour. You've got 2AP, you're gonna pass?

Couple that with having to count your opponent's deck at the same time, factor in his count, and then ratio out the two, because well, most effects in the game that'll truly matter, that counting might be useful for, the opponent gets to flip for, either opposed, or as a spell.

All together, I'm not sure that anything more than instinctual card counting will have a meaningful outcome in 5% of games, let alone 5% of flips. Just seems like an attempt at a lot of work, for very little gain.

Morgan Vening

[Gentleman J]

The problem I see with the math (and I may be seriously wrong), is that the single deck of Malifaux throws those numbers around too much to be useful. At +/-8, you state it goes from a 50% to a 62.5% chance. If that's after 8 cards, maybe. But if you've blown through 30 cards during the turn, plus the 6 in hand, those numbers change drastically.


Yes and no. Remember that if you're at +8 after 20 cards, that can mean that 14 low cards and 6 high cards have come up or that you've had 4 cards of value 7, eight low cards and no high cards or some other combination. It won't be exact because 7's and jokers DO matter but we're not really tracking which of those has come up. I'd say give or take 5% but always above 50 for a + and below for a -.

Either way, the point was really that the odds of getting a significant advantage, say 75/25 instead of 50/50 are phenomenally low. You'd have to go through 12 lows and no highs to get that far. For every two high cards that play, you need to see another low above and beyond that. The odds of 12 consecutive lows are very approximately 1 in 4,000. If you've gotten 12 consecutive lows or 8 highs and 16 lows, you don't need card counting to tell you that you can afford to take a risk. You'll have been feeling the pain the whole turn. Even then I think it would mostly inform a decision to Cheat Fate. If there's lots of good cards left, it makes more sense to cheat a bad card now.

Blackjack card counting is the process of replacing any enjoyment experienced with math in order to beat the house. I'm too lazy to work out the odds of an extreme count occurring in Malifaux but essentially you'd be sucking most of your enjoyment of the game dry for something that will work for you in the back half of one turn every few games. Not like once every two games, like once every 10. Personally, I'd rather tax my brain a little less and leave Pandora in a bad spot once every few games.

How many cards to most people do through in a turn?

[JackRussel]

I was thinking about creating a spreadsheet for each game so that I could keep track of everything that has been drawn and whilst it did give me a very small advantage it takes away the fun, working out what percentage chance someone has in combat really takes out some of the fun and I think one of Malifauxs strengths is how hard is to "math-hammer", it's like Wyrd actually care that people play the game...