Ramblings: Templating and Research

Templating is Netdecking with a purpose. If you copy a list in order to win you're Netdecking, but if you copy a list to figure out what makes it tick you're: Templating. I explained about Information Cascades in the previous article here, but there's a second effect you need to consider when Templating and Researching: The Backfire effect.

The Backfire Effect

The backfire effect makes it vital to any research that you begin without a set opinion. If you like Pistol Wraiths you will find my article on them and they will prove that Pistol Wraiths are great, but if you don't like them you will find articles declaring them a useless waste of points. You might see my article during your research, but you'll automatically dismiss it as the ramblings of a crazy person, because you happen to agree with the twenty other guys. The good thing is, that if you're doing research you probably haven't decided yet, which means you can look at the information without prejudice.

Confirming prejudice

The real test is the first few games. The way a model/unit performs in the first couple of games will seriously influence your opinion, and if the model/unit in question is the subject of intense debate it could easily decide how you feel about it, locking you in the grips of the backfire effect. How many times have you argued with someone calling a model/unit useless just to discover that he or she has used the unit just once or twice, because in my case that number is staggering.

Avoiding the prejudice

You can safely skip this section if you understand the way complex synergies affect list construction. 

It's really rather simple, and all it requires is a shift in the way we see the game. This will be a long explanation but I think it needs to be. If you go to the Privateer Press forums and begin looking for advice on using Bane Thralls you'll immediately notice that you rarely see them without Tartarus. If you expand your search even a little bit you'll notice that Saxon Orrik tends to show up in a lot of those lists as well because terrain can cause real problems for the Bane Thrall horde.

We all know this is called synergy, and we can all spot the obvious synergies, but in a game as complex as Warmachine/Hordes the synergies can be incredibly complex and hard to spot. I'll try to illustrate the complexity with a comparison: Saxon Orrik or Skarlock Thrall with pDenny, to solve the terrain issues for Bane Thralls. Think about if for a minute before you read the comparison.

• Survivability: Saxon Orrik is better armored and Stealth. Warwitch Deneghra lists are often 80-90% stealth models, which means that the Skarlock is a prime target for a lot of guns that have no other targets. This reduces the Skarlocks life expectancy dramatically. In addition a mass of stealth models will cause a lot of drifting area of effect attacks, and Saxon Orrik survives most of them on average while the Skarlock does not.
• Speed: Saxon Orrik has Pathfinder, making it easier to follow the unit around. If they need help crossing terrain the Skarlock could end up being stuck himself. The following round he might be unable to reach his unit with Ghost Walk, and in order to avoid that you could be forced to place him further forward which increases the risk of accidental "death by bullet".
• Offense: The Skarlock can cast Venom, which is a often better than a rifle. Saxon is quite capable in melee during feat round, but he will often be busy using Recon on the Bane Thralls that turn anyway. In case you're on the receiving end the Skarlock can function as a sweeper with Venom, or allow units to disengage with Ghost Walk.
• Support: Ghost Walk can be used on anything, not just warrior models. The Skarlock can also cycle Crippling Grasp, use Influence if the situation requires it, or make activation sequences a lot easier. Saxon Orrik is limited to one thing, which is supporting warrior models/units.

It would seem that a Skarlock is the obvious choice but then we get to the more obscure synergies.

• Threat: The Skarlock has more punch and support abilities making it a juicy target, while Saxon Orrik does very little except granting Pathfinder. If I had the choice between those two and a guaranteed kill on one of them I'd take down the Skarlock nine times out of ten. This means your movement support for the Bane Thralls is more likely to avoid serious attention if it's located on Saxon Orrik.
• Advanced Deploy: This means that you can deploy your movement support away from many obvious problems, but it also means that if you don't need the movement support in your first round you have a better chance of making it into a nice safe position.
• Screening: If you screen the Skarlock with Bane Thralls most models will simply shoot through them and kill your Skarlock. If a model want's to shoot Saxon he will need to ignore stealth, and if he ignores stealth he can't see him because the Bane Thralls then block line of sight.

Which of them would I choose if I couldn't bring both is a tough choice but I think I'd go for Saxon. I think it's more important to keep my movement support alive than to squeeze more utility into the list. This is unless I have a unit without stealth I could screen him with, or if I couldn't fit in Warwitch Sirens to perform as sweepers of course. Adding a single two point model is an incredible complex choice in Warmachine/Hordes, which leads me to the point of this entire rant.

Tying it all together

You can't add a model without considering the implications it will have on the entire list. The choice between two little solo characters can define how you play the entire list, and that's why you can't judge a model/unit based on it's performance in one or two games, because you might not have the right list for it. This is what you need to remember to avoid having your opinion of a model locked in the first couple of games: you might not have the right list for it.

It's as simple as that. If you keep that as your mantra you can avoid having your opinion locked for quite some time, which should allow you to make a fair assessment of it. It might suck, it might not fit your style of play, or you may lack the ability to estimate distances on a model that lives by that ability, but at least you can give it a fair assessment.

/Lamoron

Ramblings: Ranged Assassinations

Being really bored I decided to throw together some Scaverous lists. I already know what I'll be running the next couple of weeks, but sometimes putting together a few random lists, makes things clearer to me. As I put in Croe's Cutthroats, I got the distinct feeling I was about to embark on another "pDenny adventure".

Against an experienced opponent with an assassination list, a slightly worse player won't learn anything. He will deploy, he will advance, and he will die. I discovered this fact with pDenny, but eCaine will also take out newbies in turn two, and so will eMakeda, and Scaverous with the right list.

I've always been a fan of balanced lists, with the ability to play both assassination and attrition, but with Mortenebra I found a love for assassinations. The problem arose when I got good at it, because a game just isn't fun when it ends thirty seconds into your opponents second turn, and you didn't get to roll a single dice.

With Mortenebra an opponent could block my vectors, build a castle, and while it rarely worked they still learned a few things and enjoyed the game. I've had a lot of really close games with Mortenebra, but I've had exactly two close games with pDenny (including the first game, which I lost). With eGaspy I've had exactly one close game (decided on victory points, which I lost), and with Scaverous I've had a couple of close games, but only because I deliberately avoid playing assassination lists.

I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this, but I think what I'm trying to say is, that in a game between players with a different skill level, an assassination list will ruin the fun. In attrition the experienced player will have a lot more opportunities to make mistakes, and one mistake wont automatically cost the new player the game. It's a hard balance to strike, but perhaps we can keep it in mind, and gain some better (and happier) opponents in the long run.

Ramblings: Battlecollege

When I first noticed Warmachine, I found Battlecollege and began reading, which turned out to be a major mistake. While the site provides an easy way of getting to know your units, it's also full of mistakes and outdated information, that often does more damage then good.

I've got nothing but respect for the guys who write it, but not a day goes by without a thread appearing on the forums, where a Battlecollege mistake sparks an argument. I know it takes a lot of work to update that amount of information, but it's beyond annoying, and I wish someone would do something about it.

Backfire in 3... 2... 1...

I don't have the time to edit every wrong post, and even if I had I wouldn't know enough to edit any article outside of the cryxian ones, but I can write suggestions to the current editors of the articles, and I could use some help from you guys. Go to Battlecollege, Create an account (takes thirty seconds), and choose Page (Tags & Details) up top. From there you can see the editor, and send him a message.

I'm not going to go through it all with a comb, but I'll remember to send the editor a little message when I notice some missing or misleading information. If everyone of you are willing to spend a couple of minutes a week doing the same, we might get that site to a point where it makes sense to direct the newbies there.

In the end it will probably save us time as well, since writing a tiny message when you notice that something is wrong, will save you hours of debate on forums, or real life discussions. I'll go first, and get that Mortenebra entry fixed.

Ramblings Archive

An archive of the Ramblings series.

• A guide to behavior on a forum
• Arguing on the Internet
• Netdecking & Information Cascades
• Running a Blog
• Save the Battlecollege!
• Templating & Research 

Ramblings: Being a new forumite.

New people join active forums all the time, but sometimes the new arrivals end up being the majority, before they learn the ropes, and the older and more experienced forumites will lament the period of adjustment. In order to understand why, we need to look at the three major categories of forumites.

• The Newbie
• The Forumite
• The Veteran

The Forumite is a person recently graduated from newbie school, but is full of energy and spirit. The Forumite is the one explaining things to the newbies, posting progress, readable battle reports, and keeping the forum alive and kicking. The Veteran is an ancient gamer who has seen it all, heard it all, and asked it all. The Veterans live lonely lives at the top, with Forumites listening to their occasional sage advice, and newbies gawking in awe of their post counter. The real problems begin, when the newbies outnumber the Forumites.

There will be a period with questions that have already been answered, miraculous discoveries that build upon wrong assumptions, and newbies advising other newbies with sage advice, that will make them lose and post even more stupid threads on the board. Moderators will go insane trying to move all the posts into the correct forums, and the phrase "use the god damn search button" will define the forums for a while. A few months after, most newbies will have graduated to Forumite status, and the forum will be a zen garden of enlightenment, until the next batch of newbies arrive, and it all starts over again.

This has been happening for as long as there have been internet forums, and a Zoo Keeper I met once had a theory as to why. What he told me was this: "Every time I clean the monkey cages during opening hours, I have to listen to the same joke at last twenty times. Every single dad that passes by, tells his son that the pinkish ape seems to be a species he doesn't recognize, and they all think they're the funniest people in the world, and the first to ever think up that joke".

His theory was, that the same issue applied to posting online. He felt that human kind was incapable of acknowledging that other people had ideas, and failed to realize how many of us actually walk this earth, and post on the internet. I gave that theory a good thinking, and came to the conclusion that he was wrong, but that it didn't matter. Someone needs to have been the first to get any idea, and someone needs to be the first to put it into a practical application, but that person is most likely not you, and even if it is...

I'm not saying that you can't pick up the rulebook and go smack Veterans on the head with it when they're wrong (and it happens), and neither am I claiming that you cannot possibly be the first to discover a combination that will break the game, but most likely you're just wrong and annoying. This type of newbie will either quickly advance to Forumite status, learn to search before asking, and accept that he needs to learn the game before he can break it, or become a n00b, which is a permanent newbie.

Is there even a point to this post then you might ask, and there is, because increasing the speed at which newbies graduate to Forumites, is vital to keeping the Veterans around. The Veterans might not be very active, but when they do come out of hibernation, they usually do it to answer the really difficult questions. The Veterans also provide the forum with a sense of history, and remember that particular article you really need to find, and how to find it. Veterans are essential to a forum, and we need to keep them.

This brings me to the reason I'm writing this, which is the three skills you need in order to graduate and become a Forumite. They're not hard skills to learn, but failing to learn them will define you for your remaining time online, so pay attention, because this is the three skills you need to master:

• Research: Almost any question you can dream up has already been answered. If all it takes for someone to answer your question, is to search and link the first post that pops up, you will be labeled a newbie and carry that mark for a long time.
• Language: If your post is impossible to read, it will be disregarded. Your English doesn't have to be perfect, but install a free spellchecker and take care of the worst of it. No matter how clever you are, you will be judged on your language.
• Humility: You might be Einstein, but this is the internet. There are a lot of people out here, and about 1.2 opinions per person, so yours isn't anything special. It's a sad truth, but we're all designed to think we know better, and most of the time we don't. If you are humble and offer your opinion, it will be well received, but if you're being a snob about it you could spill the ultimate truth, and still be labeled a twat.

Ramblings: Arguing on the Internet

I allowed myself to be drawn into a discussion again, over at the Privateer Press forums. It's a well known fact that you can't ever win a discussion online. The reason for this is something called the backfire effect, and if everyone knew about it, we would be a lot more knowledgeable, when the world ends in nuclear holocaust. - Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. 

• The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.
• The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

You stick to your beliefs, and when someone tries to correct you, or tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead: What should be evident from the studies on the backfire effect is you can never win an argument online. - David McRaney

When you start to pull out facts and figures, you're actually making it worse. They match your fervor, the same thing happens in your skull, and all hope is lost. I have one tool to manage my Backfire Effect, but it fails just as often as it works, if not more. I know that might sound strange, but in the words of Socrates:

Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him.

When I allow myself to be drawn into discussions I fail, just as the wise man of which Socrates speaks. I assume I know better than my opponent, and no matter what he says, I'll probably keep that assumption intact. This really bothers me, and I work like crazy to overcome that particular weakness, but it's hard work.

I can actually give you an example of the problematic nature of the backfire effect. At the Danish Masters I had my third game against a T4 eButcher list. I demolished that list, without ever being in danger, and I lost a grand total of one model during the game. This was the last game of day one, and the morning after we met for breakfast before the last two games. There I sat, and listened to a conversation about the ultimate power of a T4 eButcher list, completely identical to the one I fought the night before.

I was stupid enough to comment, and told the tournament organizer (since he was the one doing the talking) that he would more or less automatically lose a game, against an opponent with Bile Thralls in his list. This was stupid, because he took second place with just that list last year, so the comment instantly backfired. The next ten minutes he explained exactly what he would do against such a list, and it was the exact same strategy (to the last tiny detail) I came up against the night before. I tried to suggest the ways his strategies would fail (as they did the night before), but nothing got through. I didn't mention that I had done all the things I suggested as counters, and won a crushing victory doing it, because I knew it would simply get him to attack instead of defend.

This sounds like a clear cut case of the Backfire Effect, and it is, but the problematic thing is, that I suffered it as well. I dismissed everything he said, because I proved him wrong just the night before, and that assumption is as flawed as his. No two games are alike, no two models ever end up in the exact same place, and no two tables are exactly the same. His strategy might work on a different table, keeping a model further back, or pushing one further forward, and while I'm pretty darn sure it wouldn't work, I wound up disregarding everything he said, and suffered the exact same Backfire Effect as he did.

This was in real life, and I knew he took second with that list last year, but I still wound up disregarding it. I can guarantee you, that even if I had mentioned annihilating his tactics (by proxy) the night before, it would have changed nothing, and that's why arguing online is a waste of time. We can't even avoid backfire in real life, so we don't stand a chance when we're online.

I would love to say, that this realization allows me to float through the internet, shooting rays of enlightenment, but I'm all out of time, since some schmucks over at the Privateer Press forums are wrong, and I have to go tell them why.

Ramblings: Running a blog

A friend of mine spoke to me about his blog the other day, and wanted to quit, because he wasn't getting the response he felt he needed, but blogging isn't something you should do, if you're looking for recognition

Whenever I encounter a new blog, I can instantly tell if the author is looking for ratings, or simply writing because he likes it. There's nothing inherently bad about wanting good ratings, and anyone that tells you he/she ignores the ratings is a damn filthy liar, but there's a difference between liking your ratings, and writing because of them. I think my friend caught on to this rather quickly, but it got me thinking (and thus posting) about blogs in general.

This blog was created in order to organize my experience with Warmachine, and having it become a success is something of a surprise. I don't get a lot of comments here, but I get a couple of hundred visits a day, which is quite frankly about a couple of hundred more than I expected. This is what I feel makes up a good blog, and even though I love seeing the graphs go up, the important thing is, that I like what I do.

I hope my readers come here for the occasional insight, and the fact that I'm trying to deviate as much as possible from internet wisdom. They/you could also be coming because of my spotlight articles, but I know you're not coming because of my great battle reports or paint guides. I'm a poor painter, and I get so involved in playing, that I never remember to note down details or take pictures, but there are hundreds of sites out there dedicated to just those things (and every one of them better than mine).

The most important thing to remember is, that you should be blogging for your own benefit. If you're trying to make money with commercials, or simply hunger for attention, you will end up with a poor blog and no readers, which incidentally is what you should have been aiming for in the first place. If you want to blog then find whatever it is you do well, and stick to it.

/Lamoron
______________________________________________________________