What I Learned on the Forums This Week 18

forums

Warning: If you have any love for Logic, Mathematics or the proper use of the English Language then you might want to stop reading now. If you read this weeks edition despite this warning please note that the author and his publishers are not responsible for damage to your keyboard or your face that may result. Thanks and have a pleasant day.

Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons!

Geometry is completely wrong and the Infernals are morons for believing that it was correct in the first place! Sure they can say that the ability to draw a tangential line between two small based models cannot be blocked by the positioning of a third model but we all know this is obviously irrelevant. Lines obviously have volume. To think otherwise is to be some kind of moronic nerd who believes in things that are correct. Obviously a tangential line doesn’t count as a real line for Line of Sight purposes. That would actually make sense. Instead we should argue that Plato along with several other ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians plus everyone who has followed in their footsteps were obviously incorrect in their definition of a line and instead we should use some other arbitrary definition of a line. In this definition lines have varying widths that must be accounted for when determining if something is in a line. The edge of a ruler doesn’t count as a line instead the line is the thinnest possible line you can draw. Sure that could undermine the fundamental principles of mathematics but I’m sure it will be fine. In this new world Geometry whoever has the thinnest pencil will rule the world for they can create the thinnest lines! Those stuck with extra wide markers will be barred from the higher offices of mathematics. You wouldn’t want some thick marker bearing idiot designing your cars or airplanes would you? The stupidity of this argument is inconceivable. Also the forumite posting this argument keeps describing his refutation of basic Geometry as indisputable. I’m not sure that word means what he thinks it means.

Also something about Sicilians..?

Correlation definitely implies causation

This week was strong in the people not grasping the basics of mathematics which was something I had not expected. Normally the Forums are used to discuss stuff related to Warmachine that being the point and all. Every so often someone talks about statistics as they relate to dice but usually not correlation. This is not something I had ever wondered about before since it seemed obvious that the differences between correlation and causation don’t apply very often in miniature wargaming. Also, I’ll admit, I assumed people knew that correlation doesn’t imply causation. It turns out I was wrong and that’s pretty disappointing really. I’m not sure providing context for this discussion makes it any better. Suffice to say someone argued that obviously correlation implies causation because you can associate the two. This is incorrect and much of this stupid argument relied upon the poster not understanding the difference between the meanings of words in scientific discourse and in vernacular discourse. That didn’t stop them from insisting that they did though. This is the internet after all, never admit you’re wrong. Double down and act like an ass. That will eventually solve your problem.

It is possible to roll .5 on a d6!

Iron Mother Directrix’s Feat is generally worse than Lylyth1’s Feat. Sure there’s all that stuff about how giving a bonus to all of your models is better than only buffing some but that’s missing the big point. What if you have to hit something with a DEF of 15.5? That extra +3 isn’t going to get you the necessary .5 to hit that defense but an extra d6 would. Lylyth’s feat being +3.5 is just better. That’s all there is too it. This definitely isn’t a stupid point because arguing that the average on an extra d6 is 3.5 that makes it better than +3 to hit is a little bit dumb. Sure you can’t actually roll 3.5 on a d6 and sure that’s only an average where Directrix’s +3 is constant but that’s hardly relevant. Actually comparing the effects of the Feat with regards to how they play out in a game is stupid. This game isn’t called Theorymachine because we play with actual physical models! That would be some sort of weird war game with some kind of war-themed name. Totally boring.

Being blind is better than being a Robot. Fact.

Missing attacks is bad!

Okay, stop what you’re doing and just comprehend this for a moment. Going to share some serious TRUTH with you and it’s important. Colossals are hard to kill. Wait for it. They’re hard to kill because they have more hit points. Keep reading. More hit points means more attacks are required to kill them. Not there yet. More attacks means you’re statistically more likely to miss one of them and fail to kill it. Almost there. Missing attacks is bad. BOOM! Mind blown right!? That’s it guys Warmachine is solved, we’re done here. Let’s just pack it all up and call it a day. Head home, drink a beer and think about what you want to do with the rest of your life. Maybe take up 40k? I hear rolling more dice for more attacks could be good.

Hero Thread: Female models conversions by BuffaLoL

This thread has some pretty awesome conversions. The OP put up a good selection of Khador models he had converted to be women to add a bit of diversity to his army. That alone would be interesting but what makes this thread awesome is that a bunch of other posters jumped into the thread and started sharing their super cool conversions too. There’s some pretty epic stuff in this thread. My personal favorite is definitely female Irusk2.

I feel this is the best chance I’ll have to put a Hawkeye Initiative picture up so here you go!

It is with a heavy heart that I must tell you, dear reader, that there will not be a new On the Forums next week. I am on a much needed vacation in a land with limited internet. I am working to prepare a happier, and shorter, update to fill our usual slot but it will not be the topical rants you expect from me. My regular rantings will resume the following week.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “What I Learned on the Forums This Week 18

  1. I’ll miss the post next week! I read the forums a lot because I genuinely think it helps me to keep abreast of developments in the game, but sometimes it makes me want to punch things. Your post helps me keep going.

    Enjoy your vacation.

  2. You think you can shirk your responsibilities just because you’re in this alleged Internet-free zone?? I demand a “Things I Learned From Real Life” post next week!

  3. Correlation definitely implies causation – that was me. I’m a working scientist, an industrial radiation expert. Correlation is evidence for causation but it is not definitive (which is what that phrase is supposed to mean). The phrase is a pet peeve of mine and everyone else I know in the sciences that rely on epidemiology because often correlation is literally the only evidence we have and people take that saying to mean that correlation is not good evidence for causation. In my case in particular a big part of my job involves explaining scientific concepts to lay people, I have had that phrase (correlation does not imply causation) parroted at me maybe 100 times, never once used correctly. I mentioned Hills Criteria in the thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria it’s what is generally regarded as the guidelines for establishing causality, you’ll notice the first 5 are all about correlation and the ones that aren’t have strong qualifying language (that’s a good paper to read if you ever get the urge, not as dry as most papers nowadays). I always try to get people to say “correlation is not causation” instead because I think that causes less confusion amongst the scientifically illiterate (i.e. 90% of people). Also amongst my pet peeves using entropy in the same sentence as order/disorder/chaos (because creationists) and describing osmosis or vacuum as the force the system exerts to bring itself back to equilibrium (hippies). That was a weird thread, I think we all agreed and were largely talking past each other.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s