PDA

View Full Version : A disheartening orientation.



Freefall945
09-06-2010, 09:56 PM
I have decided to branch out into the wonderful world of Warmachine, and scooped up the Mercenaries book to get going. I played my "this is how this game works" game with a friend of mine. He's a Retribution player, but decided to play a list of Retribution he had never played before to try to soften up his inevitable victory over this first-timer.

My force was Soldiers of Fortune (all the way to tier 4) in a 25 point game, which gave me a handful of solos some steelhead halberdiers, a pair of Nomads, and gritty Drake Macbain to get things moving. My friend played Kaelessa (sp) and a swarm of Mage Hunters, a Phoenix and I think, a Manticore? The details are fuzzy.

What occured was one of those really bad first games - the kind where the veteran, who sincerely wants you to have fun and take up the game fulltime, can do nothing but channel death himself when he rolls dice, and every fledgeling stratagem MacBain attempted fell apart. Between Backlash and the Jack Hunter rule on the mage hunters, he practically died of the headache. Most of his army being Stealthed meant I needed to charge the guns if I expected to succeed in any fashion - and succeed I did not.

My question is simple. Do Mercenaries suck? Are Retribution horrifying? Is it simply because I am playing my first game and am unfamiliar with the rules that playing this game felt a lot like forcing my face into a meat grinder, or is there some mechanical imbalance in the system I can hang my shame on?

Help a noob out.

TheBitzBarn
09-06-2010, 10:51 PM
No it is because the game is WEAK, lacks tactics see page 5

FastEd
09-07-2010, 01:58 AM
Mercs are fine. Ret isn't rediculous. What should have probably happened, and is generally how the game is demoed, was each of you just play a game with just a battle box to work out the base rules, with him explaining what he feels is the most optimal play is, but also providing the pros for other plays you could take. The battle boxes you each use doesn't mater to much. I will say, however, that Ret is a little difficult to deal with when you don't know what's going on with their army, and even more so when you don't know the game mechanics all that well.

The art of demoing is not as easy as people think, and I've been doing it for 40k and Warmachine/Hordes for years now. The only reasons I haven't signed up to be a Press Ganger (the Privateer Press volunteer staff) is because I'm already a GW Kommando (thought the program seems to be all but dead right now), and my area already has a great PG.

You may find that Mercs have a little bit of a different learning curve to them because your more limited in your options compared to other factions as you have to pick a contract or tiered theme list to build within, where as other armies can pick from their entire faction's listing, and can choose to be more constrained if they so wish. So, while you don't have quite as many options you will theoretically learn how to use what you do have available to a higher standard of play.

@TheBitzBarn Quit trolling, please. I would appreciate it very much.

pgmason
09-07-2010, 04:38 AM
I would say that you played too big a first game. I'd never try to teach someone at more than 15 points. Usually I use battle boxes.

WM's gameplay relies much more on 'system mastery' than most games, i.e. knowing how the rules and your models work, what stuff does, what order it's best to activate models and so on. This means it has a pretty steep learning curve, and I'd expect to lose a lot until you're familiar with the mechanics and the abilities of yours and your opponents' troops. It doesn't mean the game is bad, it means the game is challenging.

I don't know enough about the specific forces involved to know if that's a particularly bad matchup or not, as they're not ones commonly used in my area.

tonyzahn
09-07-2010, 09:06 AM
As everyone else has said, it's not usually recommended to play infantry in a demo game. Not because of any balance issue, but the warjacks and warcaster are the core of the game, and it's easier to learn that core when you don't have to worry about anything else.

GentleBen
09-07-2010, 10:07 AM
Mercenaries are one of the harder Warmachine factions to play and lack the brute force most of the others have. You have to get to know when and how to use all their weird tricks because they can't get a win just by hitting something repeatedly.

Your first mistake may have been playing a tier list. They are often more about flavor than a competitive edge. In most cases I think it should be the veteran player who takes the tier list as that will often make the new guys life a little easier. McBain has one of the weaker tiers and it denies him some of his best tools. For one thing, I like Gudrun the Wanderer as an early game counter-measure target. Boomhowler's trollkin are also a great choice for his feat since they are immune to knockdown. Finally I like Aiayana and Holt with him because her "harm" spell combined with Jackhammer can help the humble Nomad wreck just about anything.

If you want to build a list specifically to counter your friend's, try a highborn list with gun mages, the gun mage UA, and a marshalled Mule.

Also, read this (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/06/blood-and-coin-mercenary-warcaster.html) if you're a McBain fan and haven't already.

Warsmith_Kaile
09-07-2010, 11:37 AM
As stated above, you should have only been playing at most 15pts. Not only that but using a RoS force that was mostly Mage hunter units on a first time player is just plain RUDE. Even I, a veteran player of 7 years, can have problems dealing with just one of those squads of Eiryss-lights.

If he was planning on doing something more than just a battle box game, all he should have done was add one basic unit to each side for a max game of 20pts.

thetallest
09-07-2010, 04:47 PM
I'm going to ditto what the others have said - but from a different perspective. You say that you're 'branching in' to the game - that implies that you play some other miniature wargames?

One thing that Warmachine/Hordes has going for it is that skill is a much more important factor in the game. The learning curve, as has already been mentioned, is steeper than the one found in Warhammer Fantasy, and much steeper than the one found in Warhammer 40k. Add to that the need to bend your mind around an entirely different tactical mindset makes it much more challenging to play.

Like the others, I would suggest that you try a few games with the battle boxes (or their equivalent). Talk with your friend about the different win conditions, and try out some of the different tactics. I didn't really get into Warmachine and Hordes until I started trying to go for assassination runs - that for me both drove home the difference between the PP games and the rest, and opened my eyes to some of the errors I had been making.

Anyways, welcome to the fold, and don't give up! I would suggest that you find out who the local Press Ganger is (talk to your local FLGS) and set up a demo with them - they'll have a lot more experience running demo games.

Duke
09-07-2010, 08:36 PM
No it is because the game is WEAK, lacks tactics see page 5

In the future, Try adding to the conversation, or answer in more detail why you think the game is weak.. .that would help answer the OP.

Duke

Bigred
09-07-2010, 08:56 PM
Hey Freefall945,

My advice as another relatively new Warmachine player is don't in any way worry about the results of your first few games. Just try to get your head used to the turn sequence, and the core mechanics of the game, which are different than any other game system out there.

As others have mentioned I suggest you go small with a 15 pt game with a warcaster and a pair of jacks to start. Then add on an infantry unit and a solo to try out those rules.

You will be in there having a blast in no time. Warmachine is a great game, but it will take a little bit to get used to its fast pace and unit synergies. Don't give up. Its worth it, trust me!

scadugenga
09-07-2010, 10:56 PM
Freefall:

Pretty much what other people said re: starting w/15 point battleboxes to start--will help a lot with the easing-in factor.

Another thing-your opponent was not being very nice to you in playing Retribution for your first outing. They're the faction that pretty much specializes in killing warcasters messily. Particularly with mage hunters, their unit attachment, and Kaelysa.

Kaelyssa catches everyone off guard their first time with her nasty sucker punch. Don't feel bad.

People who have played for 7 years have gone WTF??? after getting 1st round sucker punched there.

But, best bet--bring yourself into the game slowly and you'll soon learn to love the complexity and sheer madness.

And ignore the trolling like BitzBarn. Though why an internet retailer would want to not promote sales of any game is beyond me...seems too much like shooting yourself in the foot.

Freefall945
09-08-2010, 05:52 AM
Thanks for the advice, everyone. Having read your suggestions and having put a day between myself and the agony of crushing defeat, I will indeed both play some smaller games to get the mechanics into my brain, and then work on a list that isn't so... self limiting.



And then, when the time is right, I will raise an army of sell-swords and steel-toothed mercenaries that will grind those flimsy retribution cowards into the ash of their civilization. :)

scadugenga
09-08-2010, 05:55 AM
Thanks for the advice, everyone. Having read your suggestions and having put a day between myself and the agony of crushing defeat, I will indeed both play some smaller games to get the mechanics into my brain, and then work on a list that isn't so... self limiting.



And then, when the time is right, I will raise an army of sell-swords and steel-toothed mercenaries that will grind those flimsy retribution cowards into the ash of their civilization. :)

And, if you don't mind a bit of advice from a long time merc player--make sure to take a mule or two when going up against Ret--you can still target a unit with stealth, it just automatically misses. The scatter on a 4" blast will most likely catch at least some of those annoying Mage Hunter SoB's.

G'luck!

Freefall945
09-08-2010, 01:45 PM
And, if you don't mind a bit of advice from a long time merc player--make sure to take a mule or two when going up against Ret--you can still target a unit with stealth, it just automatically misses. The scatter on a 4" blast will most likely catch at least some of those annoying Mage Hunter SoB's.

G'luck!

Noted - However, the list my friend usually runs features Rahn (sp?) and what ever those magey dudes are called; You know, the ones with the pair of huge fists who are immune to blast damage? Between Rahn's spell allowing him to choose the way a missed shot scatters and the blast damage being functionally meaningless, I had written off blast weapons entirely.

Am I interpreting their rules accurately?

scadugenga
09-08-2010, 05:09 PM
Noted - However, the list my friend usually runs features Rahn (sp?) and what ever those magey dudes are called; You know, the ones with the pair of huge fists who are immune to blast damage? Between Rahn's spell allowing him to choose the way a missed shot scatters and the blast damage being functionally meaningless, I had written off blast weapons entirely.

Am I interpreting their rules accurately?

Without having the Ret book handy and going off memory, I think you're correct. I'm easily potentially off base, though. I'll try and verify tonight and get back to you.

Personally, I haven't played against Rahn yet, as my Ret opponent likes Ravyn & Kaelyssa.

There are all sorts of ways around this though. Harlan Versh would potentially eat the Mits for breakfast, being able to take free shots @ them for casting spells, and having Stealth to avoid incoming attacks. Nyss archers & Steelhead riflement (w/CRA and, in the Steelheads case, the ability to reroll a missed shot) are great for putting paid to Mits.

Drake's Tier 4 ability gives you almost unprecedented neutralization power by getting into melee range quickly with your heavy jacks. (advance move 5", you should have better than even odds of getting first turn w/Drake's +1 to the roll, then activate Drake, cast Energizer to get each of them 3" movement immediately, Then they activate and run 10". With a 2" melee range, your Nomads have (barring difficult terrain) the ability to put things into melee that are up to 20" from your deployment zone. That can stop the shooting.

Croe's Cutthroats are great counter-Mage Hunters, having stealth as well as the ability to do extra dice in damage against living targets, advance deployment, plus the bushwack ability.

Drake is does not, however, give you as much leeway for mistakes as the other Merc 'casters. Mags is still my go-to guy for dishing out disgusting amounts of pain. :) And he can still win you the game if you make a bad mistake.

Porty1119
09-08-2010, 07:11 PM
Ah great...now that I think about it, WM/H sounds like mini-battletech-meets 40k-esque thing. Except the jacks look idiotic. Compared to this:

http://sarna.net/wiki/File:CCG_Arsenal_Black_Lanner.jpg
http://sarna.net/wiki/File:Rfl-8d_rifleman.jpg

Yes, that's right. Battletech invented the Rifledread. And I prefer forty-foot metal monsters to pigs with back-cannons. :P

Faultie
09-08-2010, 09:43 PM
Yes, that's right. Battletech invented the Rifledread. And I prefer forty-foot metal monsters to pigs with back-cannons. :P
Regardless of your taste in swine, the Rifledread's invention must actually be attributed to Macross/Robotech, not Battletech.

That's right: it is not the Tau, but your precious Space Marines that are the anime-inspired faction. ;)

scadugenga
09-09-2010, 05:52 AM
Ah great...now that I think about it, WM/H sounds like mini-battletech-meets 40k-esque thing. Except the jacks look idiotic. Compared to this:

http://sarna.net/wiki/File:CCG_Arsenal_Black_Lanner.jpg
http://sarna.net/wiki/File:Rfl-8d_rifleman.jpg

Yes, that's right. Battletech invented the Rifledread. And I prefer forty-foot metal monsters to pigs with back-cannons. :P

And this has exactly what to do with the OP?

FastEd
09-09-2010, 10:24 PM
Ah great...now that I think about it, WM/H sounds like mini-battletech-meets 40k-esque thing. Except the jacks look idiotic. Compared to this:

http://sarna.net/wiki/File:CCG_Arsenal_Black_Lanner.jpg
http://sarna.net/wiki/File:Rfl-8d_rifleman.jpg

Yes, that's right. Battletech invented the Rifledread. And I prefer forty-foot metal monsters to pigs with back-cannons. :P

As somebody who plays BT, 40k, and WM/H, the thing they have in common is that they are minis games that use dice. That's about it.

Like Faultie said, the rifleman frame (the original one) was derived from Macross/Robotech, just like all the "unseen" that seem to be causing so many problems for BattleTech these days (including preventing the Mechwarrior reboot).


Anways, back on topic, I'm glad to see your feeling a little better about the game, Freefall945. You'll get there, especially after slowing down a bit to figure out that initial learning curve.

mazgier
09-10-2010, 08:32 PM
As the others stated before - you should try to learn the game on a bit lower point level. But there's one more thing. You played your first game against a veteran. So in fact you had two opponents - his army and your own. Warmachine has a really steep learning curve and a novice playing against experienced players will lose and lose a lot. Accept that. It's not because your army is weak or simply suck. No. It's because you have to find out, learn and memorise almost every damned trick your models can do alone and combined, then try to learn out what your opponent's army can possibly do and only after that you may start thinking about winning. Looks dishearting? Please believe me - it's not that hard. And this game offers incredible amounts of fun regardless of whether you win or lose.

Faultie
09-10-2010, 09:22 PM
And this game offers incredible amounts of fun regardless of whether you win or lose.I will just second this. Some of my favorite WM/H experiences have involved losses, most often via some crazy, dastardly plan that "just might work"...and, quite often, doesn't.

odinsgrandson
12-10-2010, 11:25 AM
Warmachine tactics have a fairly strong learning curve. It is actually my kind of game- where the tactics are more complex than the rules.

A few things to note- you do not have to face down his army to win. Your objective is to kill his warcaster, and that can happen in a lot of ways. From turn 3 onward, you should be looking for ways to take out the 'caster.

Don't be discouraged by defeat. This is a case of him having a finely tuned force, and he knows how to play it well (I think he doesn't know how to not play it well). You are still learning how to best use your troops. With that sort of set up, it stands to reason that he should have a sizable advantage.

Bean
12-11-2010, 02:25 AM
Mercs are a little weak, and the Ret Mage Hunter list is balanced, but in a rock-paper-scissors way--it's quite strong against some things and quite weak against some other things. Unfortunately, your list is one of the things it's pretty good against.

That said, what other people have said are generally true. Warmachine has a relatively steep learning, tactics-wise, and it's not unsurprising that you end up getting ruined your first couple of games. Give it some time, don't let the losses get you down, and you'll eventually start winning games.

Also, don't feel like you need to switch to battle-box games to learn the game. This is a bad idea. The battle-group-on-battle-group fight is very, very non-indicative of how Warmachine actually plays, and you'll end up doing little more than teaching yourself bad habits if you make this your primary learning tool. Battle-boxes are a waste unless you need to do a lot of quick demos or you like the stuff that comes in them--quick demos are about the only worthwhile game they produce on their own.

Keep playing lists that include the units that you like, and play against lists that are built like real, competitive lists. That and making sure you learn the rules thoroughly (including all the rules for individual units--even those in other armies) are the key tasks in getting good enough to start winning games.

scadugenga
12-11-2010, 10:29 AM
Mercs are a little weak, and the Ret Mage Hunter list is balanced, but in a rock-paper-scissors way--it's quite strong against some things and quite weak against some other things. Unfortunately, your list is one of the things it's pretty good against.

Also, don't feel like you need to switch to battle-box games to learn the game. This is a bad idea. The battle-group-on-battle-group fight is very, very non-indicative of how Warmachine actually plays, and you'll end up doing little more than teaching yourself bad habits if you make this your primary learning tool. Battle-boxes are a waste unless you need to do a lot of quick demos or you like the stuff that comes in them--quick demos are about the only worthwhile game they produce on their own.

I pretty much disagree with these two points categorically. Mercs--weak? Maybe with specific merc caster combos. But that's symptomatic with any faction. I find Mags to be even more rock hard than he was in Mk 1. With the addition to the charter rules allowing Long gunners, arcane gun mages & trenchers--as well as certain hordes lesser warlock minions--the merc lists have the capability to excel in almost any theatre. They may not have the fancy jacks that the other factions do, but what they have is typically less expensive and gets the job done.

Battle boxes are perfect introductories to the game--that's what they were intended to be. Small points to start getting a feel for how the rules work, and how the game flows. What you're suggesting (ignoring the battle box and playing with full armies) is akin to telling someone to jump on a harley davidson before he learns how to ride a bike w/o the training wheels attached. Crawl-walk-run is still the best paradigm for learning anything new.

Bean
12-11-2010, 11:20 AM
Battleboxes are useful for teaching you the mechanics of battle-group operation, so if you're really such a slow learner that you can't pick up both battle-group operation and infantry operation at the same time, I guess they have some value.

For those of us who are somewhat more competent, picking up infantry along with battle-groups isn't really all that hard, and since almost every game of Warmachine involves significant amounts of non-caster, non-jack units (usually more than caster/jack units) playing battle-group only games doesn't really help develop generally useful tactics.

In battle-box games, caster assassination is everything. All four boxes win by assassination, and battle-box games among people who know what they're doing are just games of chicken where both players dick around until one player takes a shot at the assassination run and either wins or fails, overextends, and loses as a result.

Now, that might not be how newer players end up using the boxes for their first handful of games, but it still makes no sense to teach players tactics with a set of units which promotes such a silly paradigm--especially when that paradigm is fairly different from how the vast majority of games actually proceed.

It is a common myth that the battleboxes were designed to teach new players the game. They weren't. They were designed to sell the product before there were any other models in production. They are a marketing tool. They showcase the game's most unique set of mechanics--the one that sets it apart from other war-games--and they include the first few models that Privateer created for each faction, rather than models which actually make for balanced or interesting games.

Battle-group games aren't particularly good teaching tools. The upside is that they tend to be a little faster to play than games with infantry and solos, but they still fail to accurately describe the way most Warmachine games play out--infantry and solos are too vital part of the system, and excluding them makes the game significantly different, giving a warped view of what Warmachine is actually like.

Even if you're set on playing battle-group games, the actual set of 'jacks and casters found in the battleboxes aren't really the best picks for teaching games. Again, all four boxes are assassination focused, rather than focused on 'jacks beating each other up (which is the fun part of battle-group games). Remember that they weren't designed to be balanced. They weren't designed by the people who are making the game now, but a much, less experienced, much more naive group who had a far less thorough grasp of their own rules and mechanics--and those early selections, despite making for bad games, has survived even into mark II.

Even if you're going to go with battle-group games, selecting a more balanced, less assassination-focused set of 'jacks and casters is still a good idea. It is an error to stick blindly to the battle-boxes just because PP has decided to try to extend their relevance by declaring them a good learning tool. They're not.

scadugenga
12-11-2010, 03:55 PM
What you're actually doing is expressing your opinion (re battle boxes, intentions etc. of PP) as fact.

Which, unless you a) designed the game, b) work for PP are are privy to their inner thoughts and intentions, c) can cite references from PP to prove your point, and/or d) are telepathic, your entire statement is a logical fallacy.

I'm 100% with you that infantry and solos are a vital part of the game--don't get me wrong there. But your opinion on how best to learn/play the game is no more valid than any other.

Personally, I disagree with you (as mentioned before.) But that doesn't make you necessarily wrong, either. :)

Bean
12-11-2010, 07:36 PM
What you're actually doing is expressing your opinion (re battle boxes, intentions etc. of PP) as fact.

Which, unless you a) designed the game, b) work for PP are are privy to their inner thoughts and intentions, c) can cite references from PP to prove your point, and/or d) are telepathic, your entire statement is a logical fallacy.

I'm 100% with you that infantry and solos are a vital part of the game--don't get me wrong there. But your opinion on how best to learn/play the game is no more valid than any other.

Personally, I disagree with you (as mentioned before.) But that doesn't make you necessarily wrong, either. :)

If we're approaching this from a standpoint of logic, then you're wrong. What I am expressing are not opinions but facts. They may be false, but the nature of my assertions is factual, which is to say that they have truth values at all. Opinions, in logic, lack truth values--mental states, essentially, such as happiness, satisfaction, or dislike.

If we're not talking in terms of logic, then it's reasonable to say that my assertions are opinion, which is to say that they lack supporting evidence. That's certainly a fair complaint, though not one that renders them fallacies. In fact, if we're talking about this kind of assertion, then you're still wrong. Under this model, opinions and facts don't differ in a way which affects how they are expressed, and so the dichotomy on which you base your assertion is spurious--I didn't assert an opinion as fact, I asserted it as an opinion, which just happens to look exactly the same as an assertion of fact.

Either way, most of what you accomplish, here, is demonstrating that you really know very little about the concepts of fact and opinion.

Of course, if what you're trying to say is, that my assertions didn't come with any particular supporting evidence, then you're right. If you need some, here you go:

The central claim in my argument has two parts:

First, that battle-group-only games are not a good way to learn to be good at Warmachine.

Second, that the battle-boxes are particularly poor sets of models for beginner-level battle-group-only games.

The first part is actually fairly easy to produce from basic principles and easily confirmable facts. Consider:

Learning to be good at a game (in general) requires learning its rules, and for a complex game like Warmachine (with "core" rules and "unit-specific" rules) it involves, for newer players, at least learning the set of core rules. In addition, it involves teaching methods for resolving in-game decisions in good way (a way which is conducive to victory, in keeping with the rules, and in some situations, conducive with standards of fair play).

A game (which, here, means a specific instance of the game being played--we'll call these "instances") which is intended to teach a player how to be good at the game do so by providing examples of the application of the rules which need to be learned in order for the learning player to be good at the game, as well as specific decision resolutions (we'll call them "tactics") which serve as exemplars of good decisions for similar potential situations.
Battle-groups contain none of the following types of models: models belonging to infantry units, models belonging to cavalry units, solos, and models belonging to artillery units.

Each of these types of units is reflected by a significant set of core rules.

Instances which fail to include these types of units both fail to provide examples of the core rules for these types of of units and fail to provide exemplar decisions for decisions regarding situations which involve these types of units.

Instances which only use battle-groups therefore fail to fulfill the requirements of a good teaching instance in that they fail to demonstrate several significant portions of the core rules as well as tactics for a significant set of potential situations.


Now, it's fair to say that not all instances can contain every possible type of models. That's fine, though, because we presume that a new player will be taught through some set of multiple instances, and we can fit all of the necessary types of rules into these instances given enough instances. However, a proscription like, "learn with the battle boxes" specifically contradicts this fundamental goal, and thus constitutes bad advice.


In addition to this line of reasoning, we have the issue of fun. One is likely to have more fun playing with models that one likes--for whatever reason--than with models that one doesn't like or about which one is ambivalent.

It should also be a goal of instructional instances that the player being instructed have fun.

Battle-group only instances heavily restrict the variety of models from which a player can choose, potentially reducing his or her ability to play with the models that he or she likes and potentially obligating him or her to play with models that he or she doesn't like. In fact, the likelihood that a battle-group only instance will suffer from failing to include models that the new player likes is fairly substantial.


The second part of the assertion is based on two similar threads of reasoning.

It is easy to see how the second applies: if battle-group-only instances are particularly restrictive in terms of model choice, battle-box only games are extremely restrictive, and will almost certainly fall afoul of the "making the game less fun" flaw.


In addition, all four of the main Warmachine battle-boxes (ignoring, for the moment, the Merc options) constitute armies which favor caster assassination as a victory condition. To be clear, this refers to focusing on killing the caster while ignoring the rest of the battlegroup to the extent that is possible.

In every case, the easiest, most effective, and most straight-forward route to victory involves inflicting a status on the enemy caster which makes it very easy to hit (knockdown or Deneghra's feat effect in the case of the Cryx box, knockdown in the case of the cygnar and menoth boxes, and stationary in the case of the khador box) then killing the caster with arced spells, ranged attacks, or (in the case of Sorscha) melee attacks coming with a very long threat range. In all cases, the most effective tactic generally doesn't require engaging enemy 'jacks at all, and generally benefits from avoiding them as much as possible until the killing blow combo can be delivered.

Why does this matter? It means that the battle-boxes actually encourage a minimum of variety in overall approaches, and discourage many situations which are required to provide good examples of core rules in effect or exemplars of particular decisions.

Again, this is clearly contrary to the interests of the instructional instance.


It's kind of funny, really. What you decided to pick on was an amusing anecdote, but not a particularly important part of the argument. While it, too, has plenty of basis (and your assertion that it is a fallacy unless backed up by telepathy or whatnot is obviously laughable) but, frankly, its basis doesn't matter: my point rests on something else entirely. You can certainly disagree, but I have very good reasons for my assertions, and your post did nothing to invalidate any of them.

I absolutely believe that my opinion on how to learn the game is more valuable than at least some others--specifically the one which instructs people to learn the game with battle-boxes only. It is backed up by a number of good reasons.

At the end of your post, you seem to fall back on the notion that my assertions are opinions and thus lack truth values inherently. This is simply false. My assertions do have truth values, and they are the sorts of things which can be based on reasoning, which, in term, can be evaluated in terms of validity. The word opinion can mean two things, but what you've done here is either just stupid (deciding my assertions are opinions of the type which cannot be true or false) or an actual verbal fallacy known as the undistributed middle: a false equivocation of the term "opinion" (which means a belief that lacks apparent basis) and the term "opinion" in the formal-logic sense of an assertion that lacks a truth value. These are not the same. My assertions were the first type of opinion (they aren't anymore, since I've presented their bases), but that type of opinion doesn't lack truth values--a notion on which your argument certainly appears to rest.

Perhaps it's time to retrench and revise your believes.

scadugenga
12-12-2010, 12:40 AM
Ad nauseum


Nah. You're still wrong. You claiming something as true that is really your own particular viewpoint. You want to prove yourself right? Post supporting evidence from the PP design team.

Anything less is pure speculation. And is worth about as much as the paper it's printed on.


believes

Oh, and if you're going to get all high horse on your great intellectual/logical diatribe...you may want to revisit your basic grammar skills. The word you were looking for is "beliefs."

Bean
12-12-2010, 01:31 AM
Nah. You're still wrong. You claiming something as true that is really your own particular viewpoint. You want to prove yourself right? Post supporting evidence from the PP design team.

Anything less is pure speculation. And is worth about as much as the paper it's printed on.

What? You didn't actually read it, did you. Supporting evidence from the PP team isn't relevant to anything in that last post. Also, you're still messing up your terminology: viewpoints are things which can be true or false. Saying that I'm claiming that my particular viewpoint is true doesn't constitute a cogent objection to my claim in any way.



Oh, and if you're going to get all high horse on your great intellectual/logical diatribe...you may want to revisit your basic grammar skills. The word you were looking for is "beliefs."


Fair, but it's no worse than your use of an ellipsis, or your use of "you" instead of "you're" in your third sentence.

If all you've got against my argument is that it contains a spelling error and that you didn't read it carefully enough to actually figure out what I was talking about at all, then I think I'm in pretty good shape. ;)

whitestar333
12-13-2010, 09:35 AM
While Bean is trying very hard to prove his superiority, I'll just say that introductory games are just that - introductory. I think the important part isn't what list you're playing, but your attitude about your first batch of games.

Your first few games, you will lose. What's important is your attitude and that you ask your opponent for advice. Warmachine/Hordes has a difficult learning curve. Although the rules are quite simple and straight-forward and well-written, the difficulty comes in that every single unit in the game has special rules and is used differently. Simply exposing yourself to other armies and casters will help a lot - both watching and playing games.

Additionally, a neat little trick that I've found to be very helpful - in all miniatures games - is to swap lists with a seasoned player to see how he/she would play your army. It's very enlightening to see how someone plays your same army, as they will likely try something different that you never thought of. I recently had a friend borrow my army to play a game, and he totally opened my eyes up to new possibilities. I encourage anyone to do the same.

thetallest
12-13-2010, 10:35 AM
Hello Bean.

Before I get too far into this whole sordid mess, I would point out that the conclusion that I am going to discuss


First, that battle-group-only games are not a good way to learn to be good at Warmachine.

is very different than the original statement to which Scadugenga objected :


Battle-boxes are a waste unless you need to do a lot of quick demos or you like the stuff that comes in them--quick demos are about the only worthwhile game they produce on their own.


If your argument is that:


First, that battle-group-only games are not a good way to learn to be good at Warmachine.



Second, that the battle-boxes are particularly poor sets of models for beginner-level battle-group-only games.

Therefore


Battle-boxes are a waste unless you need to do a lot of quick demos or you like the stuff that comes in them--quick demos are about the only worthwhile game they produce on their own.


Then your argument is non-deductive. What I mean by this is that premise 'A' :


First, that battle-group-only games are not a good way to learn to be good at Warmachine.

and premise ‘B’:


Second, that the battle-boxes are particularly poor sets of models for beginner-level battle-group-only games.

do not automatically lead to the conclusion:


Battle-boxes are a waste unless you need to do a lot of quick demos or you like the stuff that comes in them--quick demos are about the only worthwhile game they produce on their own.


For an argument to be deductive, Premise ‘A’ plus Premise ‘B’ must have the conclusion as the only possible result. I do not believe that you have adequately demonstrated that.

Additionally, I believe that your argument is non-valid. What I mean by this is that the first premise – that:


First, that battle-group-only games are not a good way to learn to be good at Warmachine.

is incorrect. Before we get too far into this, I want to make sure that I am being clear in my argument:

Premise #1: WarmaHordes rules are a complex system of rules.

Premise #2: Learning complex systems is best broken down into manageable parts so that the individual doing the learning has an opportunity to assimilate new information and gain experience utilizing said information and has an opportunity to build a foundation before expanding the number of things required.

Conclusion: Starting off with battle-group-only games provides a good foundation for a new player to ‘learn to be good at Warmachine’.

I will support the first premise with the following:

The value in the battle-group-only games is that it teaches you about the focus/warjack or fury/warbeast interactions. This is particularly useful for a large portion of PP's market - the former (or current) players of PP's competitors (most notably GW). It also teaches you about the primary win-condition present in Warmahordes - assassination. Now - I know that arguments can be made about scenario win-conditions, however the one win-condition that is consistently present in every game of Warmahordes is the caster kill.

Should people play battlegroup games exclusively if they wish to learn the game? Definately not. They should take the time to build a foundation with the battlegroup interactions however, as it will make them a better player on the whole. It also makes a reasonable start point for building from - adding a unit to a battlegroup is a decent expansion into the game.

As to my second premise, you have made the statement that:



For those of us who are somewhat more competent, picking up infantry along with battle-groups isn't really all that hard, and since almost every game of Warmachine involves significant amounts of non-caster, non-jack units (usually more than caster/jack units) playing battle-group only games doesn't really help develop generally useful tactics.


This statement is either elitist (in that you feel that only players who are able to assimilate the entire rule system at once are those who should be playing the game) or a statement of belief that everyone is able to assimilate the entire rule system at once. In my experience, new players tend to do better when they receive a solid foundation when learning complex new rule systems – a foundation which is built upon by introducing new rules after the basics (in this case the Warcaster/Warjack or Warlock/Warbeast interactions) are learned.

I don’t really have the opportunity right now to discuss your second premise that


Second, that the battle-boxes are particularly poor sets of models for beginner-level battle-group-only games.

as I don’t have the experience with all of the different battleboxes. I will acknowledge that I have heard that the battleboxes weren't particularly well designed – that they aren't ideal in their make-up, nor are they particularly balanced.

Bean
12-13-2010, 12:37 PM
Congratulations. The argument isn't deductive. It wasn't meant to be, and it doesn't have to be. Your argument isn't deductive either, but it is still reasonable. You can certainly disagree with my premises or conclusions, but noting that they aren't valid, in the formal logic sense, is as irrelevant as Scadugenga's observation that they are opinions.

To address that point more fully,

I generally agree that it helps to break the rules down into manageable parts, especially for the initial introduction to those parts. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that several of those parts can't be introduced in the same game--only that they need to be handled discretely. As a premise, that assertion doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that "Starting off with battle-group-only games provides a good foundation for a new player to ‘learn to be good at Warmachine,’" even in conjunction with the fairly obvious assertion that battle-group-only games only incorporate a small number of parts. This argument is both non-deductive and non-valid (in a formal logic sense). If those are really problems in my argument, then your argument fails in exactly the same way.


You go even further off the mark when you post this:


This statement is either elitist (in that you feel that only players who are able to assimilate the entire rule system at once are those who should be playing the game) or a statement of belief that everyone is able to assimilate the entire rule system at once. In my experience, new players tend to do better when they receive a solid foundation when learning complex new rule systems – a foundation which is built upon by introducing new rules after the basics (in this case the Warcaster/Warjack or Warlock/Warbeast interactions) are learned.

Not only is your proposition a blatantly false dilemma (a third option is that I do feel that people who can't learn infantry and battle-groups at the same time are incompetent, but should still be allowed to learn the game in whatever manner they require--and there are many more possible options, as well), but you opted to address the rhetorical portion rather than the substantive portion, which is that battle-group-only games fail to promote good tactics for games in general, since games require players to deal with situations which include infantry far more often than situations which don't include infantry.

I have actually taught quite a few new players how to play the game, and I don't think I have ever seen anyone have difficulty in acquiring the basic rules for units along with the basic rules for warjacks/warbeasts. In fact, I taught myself Warmachine, without the input of more experienced players, using armies which contained all four types of models (at the time, there were no cavalry or artillery). It's not impossible. It's not even difficult.

I really consider the unit rules to be as basic or fundamental to the game as the warjack/warbeast rules.


Really, you could have made a post that was reasonable and relevant--you had something worthwhile to say. Unfortunately, you chose, instead, to launch an attack on my logic which was not only entirely mis-aimed, but rife with the exact problems of which you accused me in addition to others. Next time, try to stick to criticism that isn't entirely hypocritical.

thetallest
12-13-2010, 01:24 PM
I generally agree that it helps to break the rules down into manageable parts, especially for the initial introduction to those parts. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that several of those parts can't be introduced in the same game--only that they need to be handled discretely. As a premise, that assertion doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that "Starting off with battle-group-only games provides a good foundation for a new player to ‘learn to be good at Warmachine,’" even in conjunction with the fairly obvious assertion that battle-group-only games only incorporate a small number of parts. This argument is both non-deductive and non-valid (in a formal logic sense). If those are really problems in my argument, then your argument fails in exactly the same way.


I understand that you do not agree with my inductive arguement. That will have an impact on your belief about whether or not it is valid. I am gathering, however, that you believe that my premises to be true, and that you are only questioning the validity of the conclusion. It has been a number of years since I studied formal logic, so I apologize if my terminology wasn't exactly what I had intended. I should clarify - I find that your argument is invalid, non-deductive, and unsound. Had I agreed that your argument been sound, then I would have likely accepted it as valid.



I really consider the unit rules to be as basic or fundamental to the game as the warjack/warbeast rules.


This - you see - is where you and I disagree. Please note that I wasn't trying to state that my argument was deductive - I was merely pointing out that your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises - and thus while you may state that you are arguing from a point of fact, you are, in reality arguing from a basis of opinion. While I agree that the rules relating to infantry, artillery, cavalry (light and heavy) and solos are important, I do not feel they should be incorporated at the same point in the learning process. When I have taught someone new to play the game, I have started with a couple of battlegroup games, followed by the expansion to a 1-1-1-1 15 point format so that the individual gets a good grip on the different aspects of the game. After that, we commonly expand to 25, then to 35, incorporating different elements as we go along. I do, however, feel that those initial two or three battlegroup games are of particular import, especially when introducing a Warhammer player to the Warmahordes system.



Not only is your proposition a blatantly false dilemma (a third option is that I do feel that people who can't learn infantry and battle-groups at the same time are incompetent, but should still be allowed to learn the game in whatever manner they require--and there are many more possible options, as well), but you opted to address the rhetorical portion rather than the substantive portion, which is that battle-group-only games fail to promote good tactics for games in general, since games require players to deal with situations which include infantry far more often than situations which don't include infantry.


Um - actually, your stance here (from the perspective of learning) is essentially the elitist one that I presented. If you honestly felt that "but should still be allowed to learn the game in whatever manner they require--and there are many more possible options, as well", then making a blanket statement that "Battle-boxes are a waste unless you need to do a lot of quick demos or you like the stuff that comes in them--quick demos are about the only worthwhile game they produce on their own" (I note that you seem to use battlebox games and battlegroup games semi-synonymously, which is how I have addressed them) would be inconsistent with the rest of your argument, especially when you have little to no knowledge of your target audience. If you happen to know Freefall945, then you should have directed your comments towards him as an individual (such as "for you, Freefall945, I think that battlebox/battlegroup games are unecessary and irrelevant", or whatever). I understand that you were using hyperbole, however hyperbole has little place in logical debate.

Bean
12-13-2010, 02:14 PM
Yeah, your terminology is pretty off. Here're some pointers:

An argument is valid if its premises entail its conclusion. An argument is valid if you can say about it that if its premises are true its conclusion is necessarily true as well.

An argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are true.

Both of these terms refer to deductive arguments exclusively. In formal logic, inductive reasoning is inherently invalid.

This means that my agreement with your argument has no impact on whether or not I consider it to be valid. As it happens, I do generally agree with your premises. Your argument is invalid because those premises do not entail your conclusion. This assessment is not impacted any agreement or disagreement I might have with those premises or conclusions.

Further, your belief that my argument is not deductive (in which you are correct) entails the belief that my argument is neither valid nor sound, in the sense of formal logic. In addition, if you agreed that my argument were sound, it would have entailed your belief in validity as well. Because of this, the assertion that you find my argument "invalid, non-deductive, and unsound" is redundant, and the assertion that, had you agreed that my argument is sound, you would have likely accepted it as valid, is entirely unnecessary.

This, in turn, leaves your first paragraph with virtually no worthwhile content beyond the assertion that you don't agree with my conclusion and that my argument is non-deductive.

Of course, you also state in that first paragraph that your own argument is inductive--which entails it being non-deductive--so you clearly don't consider a lack of deductive reasoning to be a flaw in argumentation. This means that the only criticism you offer in that first paragraph is that you don't agree with my conclusion.

Fine. I don't demand that you agree with my conclusion.

Of course, you go on to say this:


Please note that I wasn't trying to state that my argument was deductive - I was merely pointing out that your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises - and thus while you may state that you are arguing from a point of fact, you are, in reality arguing from a basis of opinion.

You may not have stated that your argument is deductive. Fine. Neither did I, yet you posited its failure to be deductive as criticism--a criticism which applies equally well to your own argument, which makes your decision to use it hypocritical. I see here that you try to justify that criticism by another tack: asserting that, by making a non-deductive argument, I was "arguing from a basis of opinion," rather than, "arguing from a point of fact."

This is simply untrue. Inductive arguments can address both facts and opinions. In fact, in formal logic (which does deal with inductive reasoning as well as deductive reasoning) all arguments address issues of fact--addressing issues of opinion is pointless, since (as I said earlier) opinions in formal logic are things which lack truth values.

My assertions were not things that lack truth values. They were not opinions in the sense in which the field of formal logic uses that word.

They were opinions in a more colloquial sense, such as this from the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary:

"a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter"

or this, from the same:

"belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge"

But, of course, for neither of these definitions--nor for any definition of opinion outside that of formal logic--is opinion separated from fact in a manner which supports your criticism. What we are discussing is a matter of fact: does suggesting battle-boxes and battle-group-only games constitute good advice for new players who are trying to learn the game?

I have some opinions on that matter of fact, but the fact that they are opinions does not mean that they aren't based on facts, it does not mean that they are not relevant to a matter of fact, and it does not mean that I should present them in a manner which is different from the manner in which I would present a fact, since they do, in fact, constitute my beliefs on that matter of fact, and they are, in fact, based on what I believe to be generally accepted facts.


Let's move onto this:


While I agree that the rules relating to infantry, artillery, cavalry (light and heavy) and solos are important, I do not feel they should be incorporated at the same point in the learning process.

This was the one reasonable assertion you had to make in your last post. It's a point worthy of discussion, but, obviously, one with which I disagree. You go on to tell of your own experience teaching new players, which is fine anecdotal evidence. But, I have my own experiences teaching new players the game (including myself) which includes plenty of success introducing these rules at the same point (by which I mean game, here) in the process. I've played battle-box and battle-group-only games with new players, as well. They generally go fine, but I have no evidence that supports the assertion that they are necessary, and my own personal experience with battle-boxes was that they were considerably less fun to play than armies made up of models of my choosing--a strong point in favor of not requiring battle-box games.


Inexplicably, you choose to close with this:


Um - actually, your stance here (from the perspective of learning) is essentially the elitist one that I presented. If you honestly felt that "but should still be allowed to learn the game in whatever manner they require--and there are many more possible options, as well", then making a blanket statement that "Battle-boxes are a waste unless you need to do a lot of quick demos or you like the stuff that comes in them--quick demos are about the only worthwhile game they produce on their own" (I note that you seem to use battlebox games and battlegroup games semi-synonymously, which is how I have addressed them) would be inconsistent with the rest of your argument, especially when you have little to no knowledge of your target audience. If you happen to know Freefall945, then you should have directed your comments towards him as an individual (such as "for you, Freefall945, I think that battlebox/battlegroup games are unecessary and irrelevant", or whatever). I understand that you were using hyperbole, however hyperbole has little place in logical debate.

This is also almost entirely untrue. The addendum that players should be able to learn the game in whatever manner they require is a significant modification of the assertion that players who can't learn all of the rules at once shouldn't be allowed to play (an assertion I never even came close to making, by the way.)

This remains true even when coupled with the assertion that battle-boxes are essentially a waste unless you like the models they contain.

Your position seems to rest on the assertion that, without battle-boxes, a particular option for learning the game would be made unavailable to new players, but this assertion is obviously false. The models which are in the battle-boxes are in print, and available whether the battle-boxes themselves are available or not. The quick start rules are available online (or have been, at least, every time I've checked). Any player who wanted to learn the game using those models or that set of rules is free to do so--whether battle-boxes have value or not.

Finally, my assertion was hyperbolic. That's true. Of course, when I posted it, this wasn't a logical debate. It was a guy asking for advice and a bunch of people giving him advice. I posted my advice, just like everyone else, and my advice includes not feeling obligated to use the battle boxes. Expressing that sentiment hyperbolically isn't unreasonable at all.

This only turned into an argument about logic after someone else criticized my post on the grounds that it contained a particular logical error. I responded by pointing out that it didn't actually contain that logical error, and the discussion of logic started there--not in the post which contained the segment you quoted.

As it happens, I still agree with the segment you quoted. I think it expresses a worthwhile sentiment, and I think that it might actually be true, even when taken explicitly. That sort of explicit truth, though, was neither intended when I wrote it, nor particularly critical to my advice. Picking on it now doesn't constitute a worthwhile criticism of anything.

thetallest
12-13-2010, 02:39 PM
Yeah, your terminology is pretty off. Here're some pointers:

An argument is valid if its premises entail its conclusion. An argument is valid if you can say about it that if its premises are true its conclusion is necessarily true as well.

An argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are true.

Both of these terms refer to deductive arguments exclusively. In formal logic, inductive reasoning is inherently invalid.

Thank you for the logic lesson. I haven't looked at it for 16 years.


Finally, my assertion was hyperbolic. That's true. Of course, when I posted it, this wasn't a logical debate. It was a guy asking for advice and a bunch of people giving him advice. I posted my advice, just like everyone else, and my advice includes not feeling obligated to use the battle boxes. Expressing that sentiment hyperbolically isn't unreasonable at all.

This only turned into an argument about logic after someone else criticized my post on the grounds that it contained a particular logical error. I responded by pointing out that it didn't actually contain that logical error, and the discussion of logic started there--not in the post which contained the segment you quoted.

As it happens, I still agree with the segment you quoted. I think it expresses a worthwhile sentiment, and I think that it might actually be true, even when taken explicitly. That sort of explicit truth, though, was neither intended when I wrote it, nor particularly critical to my advice. Picking on it now doesn't constitute a worthwhile criticism of anything.

Heh. Well, you didn't clarify that you had backed off from your original position - the hyperbole that you initially used. As far as the argument stated above was concerned, you were still of the stance that battleboxes were useless as far as a means of learning the game was concerned.


Your position seems to rest on the assertion that, without battle-boxes, a particular option for learning the game would be made unavailable to new players, but this assertion is obviously false. The models which are in the battle-boxes are in print, and available whether the battle-boxes themselves are available or not. The quick start rules are available online (or have been, at least, every time I've checked). Any player who wanted to learn the game using those models or that set of rules is free to do so--whether battle-boxes have value or not.

This was not the assertion that I made. I will clarify it here for you:


Conclusion: Starting off with battle-group-only games provides a good foundation for a new player to ‘learn to be good at Warmachine’.

As I mentioned in my above post, I am not familiar enough with all of the battleboxes to make a reasonable assertion that they themselves always represent great value - with the ones that I have utilized, however, I have found that they provide a reasonable starting point from which to introduce new players to the game.

To draw a clear line to my reasoning, the above conclusion disagrees with your first premise, that


First, that battle-group-only games are not a good way to learn to be good at Warmachine.

While you may argue that my argument is invalid, since you have nicely quoted Mirriam-Webster,

"a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter"

I feel that you have presented an opinion on the value of the battlebox to which I do not agree.

I am pleased to hear that you have been successful in introducing new players to the game. I wish you continued success in the matter.

Perhaps we should continue this discussion via PM on the subject of logic rather than further contributing to the derailment on the thread?

Bean
12-13-2010, 02:54 PM
Thank you for the logic lesson. I haven't looked at it for 16 years.

No problem.



Heh. Well, you didn't clarify that you had backed off from your original position - the hyperbole that you initially used. As far as the argument stated above was concerned, you were still of the stance that battleboxes were useless as far as a means of learning the game was concerned.


What? I posted this:


The central claim in my argument has two parts:

First, that battle-group-only games are not a good way to learn to be good at Warmachine.

Second, that the battle-boxes are particularly poor sets of models for beginner-level battle-group-only games.


How much more clarification do you need?

As far as "the argument" was concerned, I was in exactly the stance that these two claims were true. Your presumption beyond that is an error on your part--not mine. I'm not going to take the fall for your mistake on this one.



This was not the assertion that I made. I will clarify it here for you:

Conclusion: Starting off with battle-group-only games provides a good foundation for a new player to ‘learn to be good at Warmachine’.


This is another of your assertions, yes. It's not one that's relevant to the topic I was discussing in the quote to which you were responding, here, though. Come up with something relevant, and we'll talk.




While you may argue that my argument is invalid, since you have nicely quoted Mirriam-Webster,

"a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter"


Why would I do that? You yourself said it was inductive, which makes it invalid inherently. No need to argue about it.


I feel that you have presented an opinion on the value of the battlebox to which I do not agree.

Great. Fine. If you'd said, "I don't agree," and left it at that, we wouldn't have a problem. Instead, you started pointing out what you purported were flaws in my argument--I responded by pointing out that these are not flaws. If all you want to do is express your disagreement, then do that. If you want to parse my argument for errors, then you should expect to be called out on it when you do a bad job--which you did.



I am pleased to hear that you have been successful in introducing new players to the game. I wish you continued success in the matter.


Thanks, and the same to you.



Perhaps we should continue this discussion via PM on the subject of logic rather than further contributing to the derailment on the thread?

We could, but I'll presume you don't actually want to, since you opted not to do so.

thetallest
12-13-2010, 03:22 PM
@Bean: PM sent :p

@Freefall945 - How have things turned out? Or have you even kept track of the thread? :D

scadugenga
12-13-2010, 08:03 PM
@Freefall945 - How have things turned out? Or have you even kept track of the thread? :D

For his sake, I hope not.

Frankly, this thread petered out 3 months ago. And it should've stayed that way. There was no reason to revisit it 3 months later just to start ego-stroking.

Bean
12-14-2010, 03:53 AM
For his sake, I hope not.

Frankly, this thread petered out 3 months ago. And it should've stayed that way. There was no reason to revisit it 3 months later just to start ego-stroking.

Fortunately, no-one did revisit it just to start ego-stroking. Odinsgrandson resurrected it on the tenth of December to post a very reasonable response. I saw the thread show up at the top of the forum, read the OP and several responses (without noticing the dates) and posted a very reasonable response of my own. Our discussion only began when you began directly attacking my position. That's fine with me, but if there has been anything inappropriate about our recent discussion, you have only yourself to blame.

Accusing anyone of ego-stroking is both petty and an error.

scadugenga
12-14-2010, 07:01 AM
Fortunately, no-one did revisit it just to start ego-stroking. Odinsgrandson resurrected it on the tenth of December to post a very reasonable response. I saw the thread show up at the top of the forum, read the OP and several responses (without noticing the dates) and posted a very reasonable response of my own. Our discussion only began when you began directly attacking my position. That's fine with me, but if there has been anything inappropriate about our recent discussion, you have only yourself to blame.

Accusing anyone of ego-stroking is both petty and an error.

Actually, all I did was disagree with you. Briefly.

And I'm sorry if you don't like it, or disagree with it, but anyone going to such lengthy degrees to prove their own logical superiority--on an internet forum no less, is ego stroking.

I stopped responding to the long posts not because you "won," but rather due to the fact my life has more important things to spend time on.

mikethefish
12-21-2010, 02:11 AM
Well I'll accuse him of ego stroking. He used to write this stuff all the time back on the PP forums. I suppose I may be petty, but I am certain I am not wrong ;)

FastEd
01-12-2011, 04:01 PM
I apologize for pseudo-resurrecting this thread, however I have just gotten back in the swing of posting after the holidays/fixing internet troubles. Regardless of who I agree or don't agree with, can we get a mod/admin lock, I don't feel as though continued posting in this thread being open is likely to contribute to the discussion posed in the OP or any subsequent discussion.


P.S. I'm disappointed I got to this thread so late as I do so enjoy such discussions, but it's probably for the better.