A disheartening orientation.

[thetallest]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@Bean: PM sent

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

[scadugenga]

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

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]

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]

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.