Real quick one this time. I know when I say that they turn out long, but:
I watched Jesus Camp the other day. It really got me thinking about worldviews. This is going to be expanded on in a later post, probably, but the religious (especially fundamentalist) worldview really does not understand the scientific one. This is why you get people trying to "refute" evolution by claiming (erroneously, by the way) that Darwin renounced his ideas on his deathbed. Religion is informed by revelation, which is its own evidence; the only quality revelation needs to have to be authentic is to come from a legitimate revelator. The actual content is irrelevant. They believe that the non-religious view the world through the same lens, so to undermine a view they don't like they attack the "source," the person who propagated it. They think this renders it illegitimate.
What they do not understand is that in the secular, scientific world, data is divorced from the discoverer. Darwin was wrong about lots of things. He may (or may not) have held various morally or scientifically questionable beliefs. This does nothing, nothing to undermine the fundamental truth of evolution through natural selection. We don't believe in revelation. A statement is true or false on its own merits and an idea succeeds of fails on its content, not based on the presenter.
There's a lot more I want to say: Religion accepts the unknowable, supports magical thinking, and denies the possibility of understanding fundamental truths. If science had not won out over religion in the field of medicine, we would have no interest in discovering the root causes of ailments. Science believes that the universe is a fundamentally understandable place where effects mostly follow causes (let's avoid quantum for now, folks) and the mechanism by which this occurs, even if it is not currently known, can be studied and understood. It is knowable. This is what sets it apart from the magico-religious view and why science is ultimately triumphant: because it says "Yes, we can understand this."
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
Assassination
Another game lesson. This one will be shorter. The lesson here is on assassination.
Sometimes plans fail. In Warmachine, a failed assassination run can be the end of the game. Not only is your assassination piece heavily exposed, but you usually spent all of your resources that turn preparing for the kill, so you're out of position and you didn't apply force to the most immediate threats. Furthermore, you often were able to skimp on defensive measures that you'd normally take, figuring the game would end this turn.
So what do you do? First of all, some degree of exposure is inevitable. How much is necessary? I think that depends greatly on the kill possibility. If your assassination is a Hail Mary that might or might not work, it's probably best to assume the game will continue. If it's charging a non-camping, weak caster with a buffed heavy, you can take more risks.
Second of all, how do you prepare for an assassination? You need to identify the steps you will need to complete in order to perform the assassination. "In order" is key here-- what happens first, second, third, etc? You should also identify the obstacles to each step, and how you will overcome them. Then you should remove the obstacles in order from first to last. The reasoning for this is simple: if you exert great effort clearing obstacles from your path but fail to clear the very first one, all your effort will be wasted and you will likely be in a rough position, having used valuable resources on a failed plan. If, on the other hand, you go from the beginning to the end, then if at any point your preparations fail you can either abort the plan or adjust it to handle this new situation. Thus you can realign your resources where they will do the most good.
Let's go with an example: I have Molik Karn and I want to bullet him in. What are my obstacles? Well, there are models in the way. Karn is in rough terrain which will hinder his movement. The enemy caster has a high ARM stat. There's an anti-magic solo like Orin Midwinter blocking my casts. The enemy has a counter charger near their caster who could do serious damage. There are transfers open that could lead to a failed assassination.
Let's handle these one at a time. How will the assassination ideally go? First I'll cast spells on Karn to increase his movement and get him out of the rough terrain. Then I'll charge him forward, sidestepping towards the enemy caster. Then I'll hit the enemy caster a bunch of times and kill him.
First obstacle is the spell-blocker. If he lives then none of this can happen. So the first thing I do is go after Orin Midwinter. If he lives and I don't think I can remove him without endangering the rest of the plan, I abort and try something else.
Next obstacle are the intervening models. If they live then no amount of spellcasting can get Karn to his target. So then I activate some infantry to clear the way. If they fail, at least they did some killing, and I haven't risked Karn or spent fury on needless spells yet.
Next problem is the caster's defenses. Can I kill any of his beasts? Can I add Fury to them with Paingivers? Can I throw them out of the control area? If I can, I will. This will not only damage his army but also prevent him from surviving through transfers. Can I get a Thrullg or a Hex Blast onto the enemy to remove his magical defenses? If I can, I will. Can I engage his Counter Charger to prevent Molik from being taken out? If I fail at any of those things, I have introduced some uncertainty into the assassination. I have made it more survivable. I have to decide then whether to abort or press forward.
Having done all of that, I can activate my caster, cast the spells, Enrage Karn and charge him in. If I have cleared all of the obstacles, it can work. Had I failed at any stage, I would have to re-evaluate and decide if it was possible to make it. If not, I'd abort for this turn-- just because you start the turn thinking "I could go for the caster kill this turn" does not mean you are bound to do so.
I hope this helps. Assassination is the #1 way new players lose games. It's also a fun way to win! Try it out!
Sometimes plans fail. In Warmachine, a failed assassination run can be the end of the game. Not only is your assassination piece heavily exposed, but you usually spent all of your resources that turn preparing for the kill, so you're out of position and you didn't apply force to the most immediate threats. Furthermore, you often were able to skimp on defensive measures that you'd normally take, figuring the game would end this turn.
So what do you do? First of all, some degree of exposure is inevitable. How much is necessary? I think that depends greatly on the kill possibility. If your assassination is a Hail Mary that might or might not work, it's probably best to assume the game will continue. If it's charging a non-camping, weak caster with a buffed heavy, you can take more risks.
Second of all, how do you prepare for an assassination? You need to identify the steps you will need to complete in order to perform the assassination. "In order" is key here-- what happens first, second, third, etc? You should also identify the obstacles to each step, and how you will overcome them. Then you should remove the obstacles in order from first to last. The reasoning for this is simple: if you exert great effort clearing obstacles from your path but fail to clear the very first one, all your effort will be wasted and you will likely be in a rough position, having used valuable resources on a failed plan. If, on the other hand, you go from the beginning to the end, then if at any point your preparations fail you can either abort the plan or adjust it to handle this new situation. Thus you can realign your resources where they will do the most good.
Let's go with an example: I have Molik Karn and I want to bullet him in. What are my obstacles? Well, there are models in the way. Karn is in rough terrain which will hinder his movement. The enemy caster has a high ARM stat. There's an anti-magic solo like Orin Midwinter blocking my casts. The enemy has a counter charger near their caster who could do serious damage. There are transfers open that could lead to a failed assassination.
Let's handle these one at a time. How will the assassination ideally go? First I'll cast spells on Karn to increase his movement and get him out of the rough terrain. Then I'll charge him forward, sidestepping towards the enemy caster. Then I'll hit the enemy caster a bunch of times and kill him.
First obstacle is the spell-blocker. If he lives then none of this can happen. So the first thing I do is go after Orin Midwinter. If he lives and I don't think I can remove him without endangering the rest of the plan, I abort and try something else.
Next obstacle are the intervening models. If they live then no amount of spellcasting can get Karn to his target. So then I activate some infantry to clear the way. If they fail, at least they did some killing, and I haven't risked Karn or spent fury on needless spells yet.
Next problem is the caster's defenses. Can I kill any of his beasts? Can I add Fury to them with Paingivers? Can I throw them out of the control area? If I can, I will. This will not only damage his army but also prevent him from surviving through transfers. Can I get a Thrullg or a Hex Blast onto the enemy to remove his magical defenses? If I can, I will. Can I engage his Counter Charger to prevent Molik from being taken out? If I fail at any of those things, I have introduced some uncertainty into the assassination. I have made it more survivable. I have to decide then whether to abort or press forward.
Having done all of that, I can activate my caster, cast the spells, Enrage Karn and charge him in. If I have cleared all of the obstacles, it can work. Had I failed at any stage, I would have to re-evaluate and decide if it was possible to make it. If not, I'd abort for this turn-- just because you start the turn thinking "I could go for the caster kill this turn" does not mean you are bound to do so.
I hope this helps. Assassination is the #1 way new players lose games. It's also a fun way to win! Try it out!
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Warmachine, Brokenness and Counters
I was recently at a Warmachine tournament. I finished with an undefeated 3-0 record, splitting the first place prize with the other undefeated guy. I had fun, but I noted that some attendees-- most particularly, three other members of my local gaming scene-- did not seem to. And that made me mad, because we play this game for fun, and especially if you're paying for entrance you want to have some fun that makes it worth it. I'm not even going to go into the story of the guy who was turned away, because that's a separate set of issues.
The thing is, tournaments always bring out powergaming. And powergaming in Warmachine is very much focused on a set of counters. That's why we bring multiple lists. "How to be a good player" is a topic I could write about for days and never finish, but I sincerely want to help my friends (and even though our relationship is sometimes a little difficult I consider all of the local game store guys my friends) to be better players.
In Warmachine, to win, you must 1) identify the threats your opponent's army is capable of projecting 2) identify the threats your army is capable of projecting 3) identify the weaknesses in your opponent's list 4) identify the weaknesses in your list. It is most important to do that in that order. I am going to use two games I played to illustrate that. No names will be named.
The first game was against a Cryxian force led by Asphyxious. I identified each threat in this list: first, the arc nodes that allow Asphyxious to cast his powerful spells; second, the bile thralls that could effectively clear infantry; third, the bane thralls that could kill my heavy beasts; fourth, the pistol wraith that could shut down a heavy beast for a turn; and fifth, the Slayer that could hit like a train with three Focus on it. Finally, the caster himself poses a significant melee threat.
Having finished Step 1, I went on to Step 2. My army is EXTREMELY fast, with Nihilators being capable of running up to 14" and having a 2" melee threat. They can't attack after that, but the ability to engage the enemy from 16" away is a BIG deal, since engaging on your own terms is an invaluable tool. More on this later. My second threat is Molik Karn, but he actually doesn't hit any harder or more accurately than a Slayer-- the Slayer's two POW 16 arms are about equivalent to Karn's POW 13 Weapon Master attacks, though Enrage changes that calculus somewhat. Karn does outdamage a Slayer due to his capacity to buy more attacks and the efficiency of being able to boost after rolling, but he also costs almost twice the Slayer's price point and is equivalently fragile (one more armor, several less hitboxes). Karn's threat is mostly due to his extreme movement distance. Attacking first is the most powerful threat of all, and he's great at that. So my army's threat is the extreme speed of movement.
Step 3 came next. Each aspect of my opponent's army had a different weakness: Bane Thralls, while excellent at dispatching beasts, struggle to deal with infantry, because of their low MAT, low threat range and one attack each. Bile Thralls can do nothing once engaged in melee. Arc Nodes have the same weakness as Biles, being unable to channel or shoot once engaged.
My own weaknesses include my reliance on beasts, of which I have only two, and my lack of ranged ability.
Having completed all four steps (last one was up there, checking own weaknesses) I settled on a plan of action. By accelerating my Nihilators via Road to War and running, I was able to engage the arc nodes and bile thralls, locking them down. By engaging the Bane Thralls on my own terms, I was able to deny them access to the kind of targets they want to hit. In order to prevent them from being killed by Hellfire, Banes and the Slayer or locked down by the Pistol Wraith, I held my beasts back. This plan was phenomenally successful. How could it have been countered?
Let's switch sides. How would I have dealt with that? The Skorne army I was running really only had two types of threats: tons and tons of Nihilators, who are Tough and Fearless but have low armor and average defense; and two beasts. I would feel confident that the Pistol Wraith could keep the Titan mostly locked down, so I would focus my efforts on Karn. I have a Slayer and Banes; either one of which can deal Karn a crippling blow. I could use one to bait him and the other to kill him when he took the bait. So that's the beasts planned for. Once I started the game, I would see that my opponent was going to head in with the infantry first. That changed the game a little. I would know that the Biles would be essential, so I would hold them back. Having brought four arc nodes, I would know that I could afford to sacrifice two of them to lure out the Nihilators.
In fact, that's very similar to what my opponent did. He simply moved his biles up a bit too far. Unfamiliarity with the extreme threat range of my army was a factor, certainly. But Warmachine is a game of trades, and making the trades go in your favor. By tossing out two Breath of Corruption clouds, he could put huge holes in my formation and block off charge lanes (indeed, only three Nihilators were able to charge on one flank because of the cloud). I could not afford to let this remain, so I had to send in the Nihilators to shut down the arc nodes. If the Biles were far back enough, my opponent could have waddled them forward and Purged my Nihilators. That would take care of one flank. The other would require a different approach. The Bane Thralls were ill-suited to that job, but he had two undamaged bonejacks. Unfortunately, they were both Ripjaws. If he had sent the Ripjaws up forward and held the Defiler back, then he'd have Bile Thralls on one flank and a boostable spray on the other-- easily enough to chew through a formation of Nihilators.
I have sort of rambled, but I hope I have made my point: what won me the game was identification of the threats my opponent could project, as well as the best way to shut them down. I was able to take the one resource in which I had a clear advantage-- speed-- and leverage it to victory. In an upcoming post (possibly tomorrow) I'll talk about another game, and how contingency planning can rescue a game that seems lost.
The thing is, tournaments always bring out powergaming. And powergaming in Warmachine is very much focused on a set of counters. That's why we bring multiple lists. "How to be a good player" is a topic I could write about for days and never finish, but I sincerely want to help my friends (and even though our relationship is sometimes a little difficult I consider all of the local game store guys my friends) to be better players.
In Warmachine, to win, you must 1) identify the threats your opponent's army is capable of projecting 2) identify the threats your army is capable of projecting 3) identify the weaknesses in your opponent's list 4) identify the weaknesses in your list. It is most important to do that in that order. I am going to use two games I played to illustrate that. No names will be named.
The first game was against a Cryxian force led by Asphyxious. I identified each threat in this list: first, the arc nodes that allow Asphyxious to cast his powerful spells; second, the bile thralls that could effectively clear infantry; third, the bane thralls that could kill my heavy beasts; fourth, the pistol wraith that could shut down a heavy beast for a turn; and fifth, the Slayer that could hit like a train with three Focus on it. Finally, the caster himself poses a significant melee threat.
Having finished Step 1, I went on to Step 2. My army is EXTREMELY fast, with Nihilators being capable of running up to 14" and having a 2" melee threat. They can't attack after that, but the ability to engage the enemy from 16" away is a BIG deal, since engaging on your own terms is an invaluable tool. More on this later. My second threat is Molik Karn, but he actually doesn't hit any harder or more accurately than a Slayer-- the Slayer's two POW 16 arms are about equivalent to Karn's POW 13 Weapon Master attacks, though Enrage changes that calculus somewhat. Karn does outdamage a Slayer due to his capacity to buy more attacks and the efficiency of being able to boost after rolling, but he also costs almost twice the Slayer's price point and is equivalently fragile (one more armor, several less hitboxes). Karn's threat is mostly due to his extreme movement distance. Attacking first is the most powerful threat of all, and he's great at that. So my army's threat is the extreme speed of movement.
Step 3 came next. Each aspect of my opponent's army had a different weakness: Bane Thralls, while excellent at dispatching beasts, struggle to deal with infantry, because of their low MAT, low threat range and one attack each. Bile Thralls can do nothing once engaged in melee. Arc Nodes have the same weakness as Biles, being unable to channel or shoot once engaged.
My own weaknesses include my reliance on beasts, of which I have only two, and my lack of ranged ability.
Having completed all four steps (last one was up there, checking own weaknesses) I settled on a plan of action. By accelerating my Nihilators via Road to War and running, I was able to engage the arc nodes and bile thralls, locking them down. By engaging the Bane Thralls on my own terms, I was able to deny them access to the kind of targets they want to hit. In order to prevent them from being killed by Hellfire, Banes and the Slayer or locked down by the Pistol Wraith, I held my beasts back. This plan was phenomenally successful. How could it have been countered?
Let's switch sides. How would I have dealt with that? The Skorne army I was running really only had two types of threats: tons and tons of Nihilators, who are Tough and Fearless but have low armor and average defense; and two beasts. I would feel confident that the Pistol Wraith could keep the Titan mostly locked down, so I would focus my efforts on Karn. I have a Slayer and Banes; either one of which can deal Karn a crippling blow. I could use one to bait him and the other to kill him when he took the bait. So that's the beasts planned for. Once I started the game, I would see that my opponent was going to head in with the infantry first. That changed the game a little. I would know that the Biles would be essential, so I would hold them back. Having brought four arc nodes, I would know that I could afford to sacrifice two of them to lure out the Nihilators.
In fact, that's very similar to what my opponent did. He simply moved his biles up a bit too far. Unfamiliarity with the extreme threat range of my army was a factor, certainly. But Warmachine is a game of trades, and making the trades go in your favor. By tossing out two Breath of Corruption clouds, he could put huge holes in my formation and block off charge lanes (indeed, only three Nihilators were able to charge on one flank because of the cloud). I could not afford to let this remain, so I had to send in the Nihilators to shut down the arc nodes. If the Biles were far back enough, my opponent could have waddled them forward and Purged my Nihilators. That would take care of one flank. The other would require a different approach. The Bane Thralls were ill-suited to that job, but he had two undamaged bonejacks. Unfortunately, they were both Ripjaws. If he had sent the Ripjaws up forward and held the Defiler back, then he'd have Bile Thralls on one flank and a boostable spray on the other-- easily enough to chew through a formation of Nihilators.
I have sort of rambled, but I hope I have made my point: what won me the game was identification of the threats my opponent could project, as well as the best way to shut them down. I was able to take the one resource in which I had a clear advantage-- speed-- and leverage it to victory. In an upcoming post (possibly tomorrow) I'll talk about another game, and how contingency planning can rescue a game that seems lost.
Back
Ok, so I've resolved to keep this thing updated. I have free time now, having graduated, so I can do that. I'll start by posting a little parable I wrote.
Lots of injokes in here. Names have not been changed because nobody is innocent.
Say we all live in a village called PVCCopolis. There are 100 people living in this village.
Say we each have $100, exactly the same amount of money. Say that we could buy generators-- one generator provides enough electricity for one person and costs $90, because you have to construct an electrical line to your house and set it all up and buy the generator and fuel and whatnot. We each only have $10 left. Let's assume that a generator is an indispensable utility, so everyone wants one-- and in any case, everyone has to pay, because anyone can get benefit from the generator by running a line to their house.
Now say we could buy a big generator for $8000 that provides enough electricity for everyone. This cost would cover the generator, fuel, hooking up everyone's house etc.
The liberal solution is to tax everyone for $80 and buy the big one, giving everyone electricity and $20 left each.
The conservative solution is to let the market figure it out. Now, in this village, naturally the market would decide to buy the big generator, netting the same result.
Now imagine PVCCopolis has lots of different kinds of people. There's the town doctor, Shogs, whose medical practice and musical career have made him wealthy. There's Prince Ali, the son of the king, who lives in luxury from his inheritance. On the other end of the scale there's Georgeson who is poor and stupid and spends his welfare checks on Old Crow. Say Shogs and Ali have $200 and Georgeson only has $40. In all other respects the situation is the same as before.
Why don't we buy the big generator? Well, no one person can afford it. Furthermore, Georgeson can't afford to pay the $80 required. He can only pay $40. "But wait!" cry Shogs and Prince Ali. "Why should we have to pay the full $80 when Georgeson is only paying $40? Also, will we have to pay more to make up the shortfall? Screw that, we're buying our own generators!"
As a result, some people go without electricity and some people buy more expensive, less efficient generators.
The liberal solution is progressive taxation. Sygerrik, the town's long-suffering accountant, puts it this way: "Well, Prince Ali, you use a lot more electricity than Georgeson. He just runs his lights and electric stove and maybe a TV. You have all that plus your blender, your stereo, and the electric nipple clamps for your erotic homosex torture dungeon. Maybe you should pay more since you get more benefit out of it." Some people are so poor that they just get given electricity for free, so nobody has to freeze or starve. We get a big, efficient generator.
The conservative solution is "let the poor die in the streets if they can't afford to live." Or alternatively, Georgeson spends $40 on a terrible generator that shorts out constantly and he's still cold and hungry, and now too poor to afford enough alcohol to let him forget that.
We could expand this parable further-- discussing what happens when we can prevent poor people from using the generator if they haven't paid in-- but that involves making the situation much more complex and adding in variables like Prince Ali's Egg Farm, which employs Georgeson (he is a trustworthy worker, since he won't eat any eggs), and thus how Prince Ali and society as a whole are negatively impacted by inefficiencies such as expensive, crappy generators.
Lots of injokes in here. Names have not been changed because nobody is innocent.
Say we all live in a village called PVCCopolis. There are 100 people living in this village.
Say we each have $100, exactly the same amount of money. Say that we could buy generators-- one generator provides enough electricity for one person and costs $90, because you have to construct an electrical line to your house and set it all up and buy the generator and fuel and whatnot. We each only have $10 left. Let's assume that a generator is an indispensable utility, so everyone wants one-- and in any case, everyone has to pay, because anyone can get benefit from the generator by running a line to their house.
Now say we could buy a big generator for $8000 that provides enough electricity for everyone. This cost would cover the generator, fuel, hooking up everyone's house etc.
The liberal solution is to tax everyone for $80 and buy the big one, giving everyone electricity and $20 left each.
The conservative solution is to let the market figure it out. Now, in this village, naturally the market would decide to buy the big generator, netting the same result.
Now imagine PVCCopolis has lots of different kinds of people. There's the town doctor, Shogs, whose medical practice and musical career have made him wealthy. There's Prince Ali, the son of the king, who lives in luxury from his inheritance. On the other end of the scale there's Georgeson who is poor and stupid and spends his welfare checks on Old Crow. Say Shogs and Ali have $200 and Georgeson only has $40. In all other respects the situation is the same as before.
Why don't we buy the big generator? Well, no one person can afford it. Furthermore, Georgeson can't afford to pay the $80 required. He can only pay $40. "But wait!" cry Shogs and Prince Ali. "Why should we have to pay the full $80 when Georgeson is only paying $40? Also, will we have to pay more to make up the shortfall? Screw that, we're buying our own generators!"
As a result, some people go without electricity and some people buy more expensive, less efficient generators.
The liberal solution is progressive taxation. Sygerrik, the town's long-suffering accountant, puts it this way: "Well, Prince Ali, you use a lot more electricity than Georgeson. He just runs his lights and electric stove and maybe a TV. You have all that plus your blender, your stereo, and the electric nipple clamps for your erotic homosex torture dungeon. Maybe you should pay more since you get more benefit out of it." Some people are so poor that they just get given electricity for free, so nobody has to freeze or starve. We get a big, efficient generator.
The conservative solution is "let the poor die in the streets if they can't afford to live." Or alternatively, Georgeson spends $40 on a terrible generator that shorts out constantly and he's still cold and hungry, and now too poor to afford enough alcohol to let him forget that.
We could expand this parable further-- discussing what happens when we can prevent poor people from using the generator if they haven't paid in-- but that involves making the situation much more complex and adding in variables like Prince Ali's Egg Farm, which employs Georgeson (he is a trustworthy worker, since he won't eat any eggs), and thus how Prince Ali and society as a whole are negatively impacted by inefficiencies such as expensive, crappy generators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)