When I was 16, I met Bru. I had a boyfriend at the time, and he was great. But I am not going to write about that first relationship. Instead, I'm going to write about the first time I was struck by lightning, the first time I fell in love.
It was summer, the summer before my junior year of high school, the summer before I left home for boarding school. I went to a pool party sponsored by my church youth group with all my usual cronies, who were also great. They were smart and interesting. But it was Meridian, MS, and I was hungry, though I didn't know it, for something else. I wanted to be in the flow of ideas; I wanted to live inside the novels and poems that I spent all my time pouring over.
I was hanging out in the water with all my girl friends, chatting and laughing and being teenagers, when he walked up. He was red headed with a red goatee, tall and skinny, and he seemed very, very old to me because he was in college. He was a friend of my youth minister from out of town, a kid from his last church, and I have no memory of how we ended up in conversation. I remember him walking into the fenced-in pool deck, and the next thing I remember is the two of us, far from anyone else in the pool, talking about Dante.
He was smart and passionate about ideas and open, and we talked about every book I had ever read and some I hadn't. We talked about Jewish mysticism, and he told me that he didn't believe in hell. I came from a family of slightly unorthodox thinkers, so it's not like he opened new worlds, but he was young and red headed. I was ripe to fall in love with an iconoclast and his goatee.
After the pool party, I had a date with my boyfriend, during which I constantly thought about Bru. The next morning was Sunday, and I insisted on going to the early service (which I usually hated with all those damn guitars) because I knew he would be there. I stared at him all through church and wondered if everyone could tell what I was thinking. The insides of me were in such a glow that I thought it must have been visible. After church, we skipped Sunday school and stood talking behind the youth building for that hour. He kissed me on the cheek when he left.
I thought of him most of the time until his first letter came, and then I thought of him every second. He worked as a stock boy in a warehouse, and he wrote to me during his break, as he sat in the back, looking out of the open door into an approaching thunderstorm. His letters were thick with pages, full of poems he copied out for me to read, full of descriptions of the sky at night, full of his ideas about god and literature and his future.
My letters were written on yellow legal paper with a jagged ripped edge at the top. Stationary was too small and pretentious for the raw feelings and hopes that I penned. I told him about what I hoped for at boarding school, about meeting him and the outside world and longing to be in it, and about books. Always books. Some people fall in love over wine or scenery or dancing. For me it was books.
When I read Tennyson again or Keats or Jane Austen or L.M. Montgomery, I felt something new. I knew about "the baths of all the Western stars" now; I wanted to reach them. I had seen the "huge cloudy symbols of a high romance;" I wanted to live long enough to write them down. I loved Colonel Branden and Gilbert Blythe with new intensity. I thought of Bru when I read, and I thought of reading when I wrote to him. Perhaps my memory of him is so strong now and still so white hot because it is bound up with my memories of stories and words and my own awakening as a reader.
Eventually, the letters stopped coming. I went away to school and sank into learning like quicksand. I didn't miss him much because I was too busy loving everything and everybody, and my mind was full of ideas all the time. But I thought of him, especially when my poetry club met at dusk under the trees that looked like broccoli and read out loud.
I ended up choosing Sewanee, the college where he went, but not because of him. I can see why we both ended up there, though. It was the physical embodiment of the things that had drawn us together. It was lovely, more lovely than any place I have ever seen since, and it was old with well-worn rituals and a powerful lust for words. I met him there, was shocked to find we had both grown up and apart, and never really got to know him any better.
But we met once, on a bridge in Abbo's Alley, after it had snowed. It was a stone footbridge with several inches of snow piled on the railing, and the sun was glaring on the frozen trees. My grandfather had died the day before, and I was taking a last walk through the lovely campus before I left to go home for his funeral. Bru was there, and his red hair flamed out against the whiteness. I don't remember much that we said. I cried about Papaw, and he told me that he stopped writing to me when his father died.
He has stayed with me while far longer relationships have faded away. I still think of him every time I mention Dante (and that is far more often than you might imagine) and I still like red heads best of all.
7/29/10
Using the Mistaken Goal Chart In the Classroom
Since I wrote about the mistaken goal chart last week, I thought this week I would give my dear readers an example of how I have used it. Plus, I have been wanting to write more about my classroom/gym experience using positive discipline, so here goes.
I was teaching a one-hour 5 year old gymnastics class with 8 kids in it. Mostly, it is super easy to get kids to behave in gymnastics because they love to be there and naturally stay right on track. With the littler kids, though, there is often the problem of distractabiltiy in a gym where 6 thousand things are going on all around them. But for a 5 year old class like this, usually just calling the kids name snaps him back into the task at hand, and that's often all the discipline I have to do.
Most of my class management occurs before the kids even get there. I try to streamline the process of moving from bars to beam to floor to vault so that there is little time between activities in which to misbehave. I enlist the kids help for setting up, give them little tasks while moving between activities (like walking on toes), and try to minimize waiting in lines. Those things keep kids moving and having fun, so they don't even think of doing anything inappropriate.
I also use my energy level to keep kids focused. If a coach sits or stands still or stops talking and encouraging and laughing, the laws of physics state that the coach becomes a black hole and all the energy of the class will be sucked away. So I move constantly, touching everyone, giving constant feedback, laughing and joking and enjoying myself, and that keeps the kids energy where it belongs: in their cartwheels.
But I have had a few challenging students who required more support from me to behave well, and that's where the mistaken goal chart comes into the story. In this particular 5 year old class, I had a little boy who was a terror. He constantly irritated the other kids, would do one cartwheel and then stop, would wander away from the class, would try to get my attention every second, etc. He was one of those kids that gets talked about in the break room. Coaches try to teach classes he isn't in. He had several older brothers who also ran wild over the gym waiting area while the little one was in class, and they all drove the secretary mad. I asked around about his family because I never ever saw a parent with whom to discuss his behavior. I was told that he didn't have a dad, and his mom was almost completely uninvolved in his life. Basically, he was being raised by his older brothers who were still kids themselves.
Knowing something about his life did two things. First, it made me feel sympathetic to him instead of angry and annoyed. Second, it made me think about the whys of his behavior instead of just the what. So, I used the mistaken goal chart. I noticed that I mostly felt annoyed and irritated by him, so that's a clue that his mistaken goal might be undue attention. From what I understood about his home life, it seemed to fit. Why wouldn't a child who didn't get enough adult attention try to get it from every adult he came into contact with? And if he was being taught all his social skills by other kids, it seemed reasonable that he was using a poor method that wasn't getting results. I wondered about what school must be like for him; I would be willing to bet that his teachers think of him as a trouble maker (just like the coaches at the gym). He was probably getting mostly negative attention there too.
So I decided that I wouldn't wait for him to misbehave or ask for attention. I would just give him tons of physical contact and kind words from the beginning and see what happened. I would also continue to stop him from irritating other students, but I would worry less about how much gymnastics he was learning and focus for a while on what kind of experience he was getting from me (one of the few adults he ever interacted with).
I asked him if he would like it if I carried him from activity to activity. Yes, he said, with a lit up face, he would love this. Most 5 year old boys want to play roughly with me, but they aren't usually cuddlers, so I took this as proof that he desperately needed adult contact. I hugged him when I saw him. I touched his hair when I passed by him in line. I spent time picking him up and throwing him into the foam pit (I did the same to the other kids, since they all love this). I spoke with him before and after class. I waved at him on the playground when I saw him during his brother's classes. I carried him from beam to bars to vault to floor. I treated him like a darling child that I couldn't get enough of. And an amazing thing happened. He became a darling child that I couldn't get enough of.
His behavior improved A LOT. He stayed on task; he begged for attention less; he kept his hands off the other students; he stayed where he was supposed to stay. He blossomed when some love and affection was showered on him, not as a reward for good behavior, but as his due as a child.
Had I not consulted the mistaken goal chart, I would still have addressed his behavior using positive discipline. But I wouldn't have been fixing the problem he really had. I could have made him the line leader, but his problem wasn't that he felt a lack of power. I could have found him a smaller class with less going on in the gym at that time, but his problem wasn't over-stimulation. By using the chart to find his real problem, the misbehavior melted away. Jane Nelson really is right when she says that "children behave better when they feel better."
I was teaching a one-hour 5 year old gymnastics class with 8 kids in it. Mostly, it is super easy to get kids to behave in gymnastics because they love to be there and naturally stay right on track. With the littler kids, though, there is often the problem of distractabiltiy in a gym where 6 thousand things are going on all around them. But for a 5 year old class like this, usually just calling the kids name snaps him back into the task at hand, and that's often all the discipline I have to do.
Most of my class management occurs before the kids even get there. I try to streamline the process of moving from bars to beam to floor to vault so that there is little time between activities in which to misbehave. I enlist the kids help for setting up, give them little tasks while moving between activities (like walking on toes), and try to minimize waiting in lines. Those things keep kids moving and having fun, so they don't even think of doing anything inappropriate.
I also use my energy level to keep kids focused. If a coach sits or stands still or stops talking and encouraging and laughing, the laws of physics state that the coach becomes a black hole and all the energy of the class will be sucked away. So I move constantly, touching everyone, giving constant feedback, laughing and joking and enjoying myself, and that keeps the kids energy where it belongs: in their cartwheels.
But I have had a few challenging students who required more support from me to behave well, and that's where the mistaken goal chart comes into the story. In this particular 5 year old class, I had a little boy who was a terror. He constantly irritated the other kids, would do one cartwheel and then stop, would wander away from the class, would try to get my attention every second, etc. He was one of those kids that gets talked about in the break room. Coaches try to teach classes he isn't in. He had several older brothers who also ran wild over the gym waiting area while the little one was in class, and they all drove the secretary mad. I asked around about his family because I never ever saw a parent with whom to discuss his behavior. I was told that he didn't have a dad, and his mom was almost completely uninvolved in his life. Basically, he was being raised by his older brothers who were still kids themselves.
Knowing something about his life did two things. First, it made me feel sympathetic to him instead of angry and annoyed. Second, it made me think about the whys of his behavior instead of just the what. So, I used the mistaken goal chart. I noticed that I mostly felt annoyed and irritated by him, so that's a clue that his mistaken goal might be undue attention. From what I understood about his home life, it seemed to fit. Why wouldn't a child who didn't get enough adult attention try to get it from every adult he came into contact with? And if he was being taught all his social skills by other kids, it seemed reasonable that he was using a poor method that wasn't getting results. I wondered about what school must be like for him; I would be willing to bet that his teachers think of him as a trouble maker (just like the coaches at the gym). He was probably getting mostly negative attention there too.
So I decided that I wouldn't wait for him to misbehave or ask for attention. I would just give him tons of physical contact and kind words from the beginning and see what happened. I would also continue to stop him from irritating other students, but I would worry less about how much gymnastics he was learning and focus for a while on what kind of experience he was getting from me (one of the few adults he ever interacted with).
I asked him if he would like it if I carried him from activity to activity. Yes, he said, with a lit up face, he would love this. Most 5 year old boys want to play roughly with me, but they aren't usually cuddlers, so I took this as proof that he desperately needed adult contact. I hugged him when I saw him. I touched his hair when I passed by him in line. I spent time picking him up and throwing him into the foam pit (I did the same to the other kids, since they all love this). I spoke with him before and after class. I waved at him on the playground when I saw him during his brother's classes. I carried him from beam to bars to vault to floor. I treated him like a darling child that I couldn't get enough of. And an amazing thing happened. He became a darling child that I couldn't get enough of.
His behavior improved A LOT. He stayed on task; he begged for attention less; he kept his hands off the other students; he stayed where he was supposed to stay. He blossomed when some love and affection was showered on him, not as a reward for good behavior, but as his due as a child.
Had I not consulted the mistaken goal chart, I would still have addressed his behavior using positive discipline. But I wouldn't have been fixing the problem he really had. I could have made him the line leader, but his problem wasn't that he felt a lack of power. I could have found him a smaller class with less going on in the gym at that time, but his problem wasn't over-stimulation. By using the chart to find his real problem, the misbehavior melted away. Jane Nelson really is right when she says that "children behave better when they feel better."
7/27/10
Tournament prep and general housekeeping
While I should have been learning about recent American literature this morning, I was considering what I needed to add to my bag for the tournament this weekend. I added some smaller dice to my bag to track crew damage, as I only had 2 in the bag previously, some other small dice to mark the odd port/starboard AD reduction, a d8 for wind direction and a scatter die to mark my airship's placement and heading if it ends up on terrain, as it often does. I found a smaller, keyring-sized tape measure that I'll stick in my bag in case my opponent comes without one, as well as a small bag of glass beads from some TCG that I'll use for activation markers. I still need to make some wind templates, for my opponents if necessary in the immediate future, but also for my Humans in the not-so-distant future. I also assembled a second bag of dice thinking that my friend may have been interested in the tournament, though as expected he declined, but I'll bring it along anyway just in case. It's always better to be over-prepared than get surprised.
Kairaven produced more goodies last night. He had some bomb markers made up at Litko and didn't need the whole batch of 10, so I've got a pair of them now. I'm not sure what I'll do with them, as dropping the bomb is generally a memorable event, but they could come in handy sometime. He also gave me a ID cruiser that he had 'left over.' This I can understand, as the cruisers come in blisters of 2, while a full squadron is 3. I had picked up a blister a few weeks ago to use as proxies for destroyers until the actual destroyer models arrived, so I already had 2 on hand. I'd been considering filling out that squad, but that would require making a third squadron as well. While I might conceivably take two squadrons of 3 cruisers, I doubt I would ever field 9 of them. Now I don't have to worry about it. I still want to add another battleship, 2 more heavy cruisers, a pair of Belchers, and another airship (though I'll wait for the extended wing sculpt for that), and then I think I'll be pretty happy with my ID fleet. Which leads somewhat towards...
Humans. I've talked around this a couple times, but I'll get into it now. I got the starter fleet box last night as well as a pack of 1"x2" metal bases to mount the frigates on. I've been considering this for a while and finally took the plunge. I've been pleased with the slow-growth format that EV and I have used on our respective dwarven fleets, and I'd like to spread this to the Spartan forums in general. I've seen similar threads/events/posts on other forums and they always seem to be popular. Then again, a lot of the forumites at the Spartan boards already have multiple fleets, so it may not work as well as I'd like. I'm still mulling details, but I'm leaning towards a 3 month progression of starter box/500 points, 750 points, 1000 points. That gives a nice increase each month without dragging the thing out too long. I'd really like to go starter, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, as that progression would hit all the "milestones" of flagships, second battleships, and so forth, but that format would run through the end of the year, and I think that's just too long. Whatever I end up going with, I think I'll put the post up in the next couple of days so the thing starts in August. Regardless of how that works out, I'm excited to have a wind using fleet, and having 2 fleets will let me try and hook people more easily than splitting my ID fleet in half. The split works for demo games, but not so much for 5-600 point getting-a-good-feel-for-it games. I'm still considering paint schemes, but I'm almost settled on dark green and cream stripes for the sails with dark planking. I need to find my box of transfers and see what kind of icons I have on hand as that could affect my scheme decision as well. Plenty to do on multiple fronts. Fortunately class ends in just over a week, and I'll have 2-3 weeks before the fall semester starts, so I can hopefully knock some of these projects out and maybe give my poor Khador models some love as well.
Kairaven produced more goodies last night. He had some bomb markers made up at Litko and didn't need the whole batch of 10, so I've got a pair of them now. I'm not sure what I'll do with them, as dropping the bomb is generally a memorable event, but they could come in handy sometime. He also gave me a ID cruiser that he had 'left over.' This I can understand, as the cruisers come in blisters of 2, while a full squadron is 3. I had picked up a blister a few weeks ago to use as proxies for destroyers until the actual destroyer models arrived, so I already had 2 on hand. I'd been considering filling out that squad, but that would require making a third squadron as well. While I might conceivably take two squadrons of 3 cruisers, I doubt I would ever field 9 of them. Now I don't have to worry about it. I still want to add another battleship, 2 more heavy cruisers, a pair of Belchers, and another airship (though I'll wait for the extended wing sculpt for that), and then I think I'll be pretty happy with my ID fleet. Which leads somewhat towards...
Humans. I've talked around this a couple times, but I'll get into it now. I got the starter fleet box last night as well as a pack of 1"x2" metal bases to mount the frigates on. I've been considering this for a while and finally took the plunge. I've been pleased with the slow-growth format that EV and I have used on our respective dwarven fleets, and I'd like to spread this to the Spartan forums in general. I've seen similar threads/events/posts on other forums and they always seem to be popular. Then again, a lot of the forumites at the Spartan boards already have multiple fleets, so it may not work as well as I'd like. I'm still mulling details, but I'm leaning towards a 3 month progression of starter box/500 points, 750 points, 1000 points. That gives a nice increase each month without dragging the thing out too long. I'd really like to go starter, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, as that progression would hit all the "milestones" of flagships, second battleships, and so forth, but that format would run through the end of the year, and I think that's just too long. Whatever I end up going with, I think I'll put the post up in the next couple of days so the thing starts in August. Regardless of how that works out, I'm excited to have a wind using fleet, and having 2 fleets will let me try and hook people more easily than splitting my ID fleet in half. The split works for demo games, but not so much for 5-600 point getting-a-good-feel-for-it games. I'm still considering paint schemes, but I'm almost settled on dark green and cream stripes for the sails with dark planking. I need to find my box of transfers and see what kind of icons I have on hand as that could affect my scheme decision as well. Plenty to do on multiple fronts. Fortunately class ends in just over a week, and I'll have 2-3 weeks before the fall semester starts, so I can hopefully knock some of these projects out and maybe give my poor Khador models some love as well.
7/26/10
US Battle Report - A Night of Two Games, Part Two
The second half of the night's double-header saw a return to form for me. I was eager to avenge my loss, but I was a little worried at the same time. Would my dice come back to me? Or had I undergone a fundamental paradigm shift? Could I no longer reasonably expect to beat expected value on nearly every roll? Would Gorgor's dice continue to make swiss cheese of my ships? The only way to find out was to get back to it. I ran the same list, while Gorgor made some changes, which you can find after the break.
We chatted about our fleets as we reset the board. Gorgor talked about why he went for the Elves instead of Shroud Mages: sails. He wanted a wind-powered fleet, a sentiment that I can sympathize with. I picked up an Imperial Human starter fleet tonight, but that's for another post. He swapped the heavy cruisers for regular cruisers and added more destroyers. Given how well the destroyers had done for him in the first game, this was very understandable. His list was as such:
Battleship - 110
War Dragon - 65
3 Cruisers - 165
3 Crow Destroyers - 135
3 Crow Destroyers - 135
610 total
Wow, that is a big points difference. I pointed out that he needed a squad of frigates to meet the full requirements of the fleet composition document, but as usual I didn't really care what he took. Had I realized the points difference at the time, I would have said something about that, but I didn't notice it until writing the list just now. Chalk up another learning experience, knowing how much other fleets' ships are.
The terrain was the same as the first game. Figuring that the south was choked with dwarven bodies and wreckage, I decided to head for the northern part of the center instead. I deployed in such a way that I could go above of below the northern center island as the situation demanded. I planned to cross my battleship and cruisers immediately so I could use the cruisers to screen my battleship, which took a lot of fire in the first game. The wind was blowing towards the southwest, which meant it would actually affect things if I could keep the Elves on my left and force them to turn into the wind to come after me. The few times the Elves had run against the wind in the first game, the difference in speed was very noticeable, so I wanted to make it an issue as much as possible. Gorgor deployed on a slant that would allow him to cut through the middle and hit me with his broadsides as he passed, but would then require him to run into the wind to come around for another pass.
My first activation was already better than the first game. My frigates moved up for a long-range potshot at the northern destroyers and managed to ding it.
My third activation of the first turn decided the game. I moved my battleship up and played Experimental Ammunition, a card which usually does nothing good for me. I managed a respectable roll of 11 to determine AD, then rolled 12 successes with those 11 dice, resulting in a crit on the Elven battleship. That was more like normal. Then I rolled snake eyes for the crit and sent the Elf battleship down. At a stroke, I gelded the Elf fleet. I tried not to celebrate too much.
After the battleship went down, I peeled my destroyers off to the south to start taking shots at the dragon, which was the biggest remaining threat. Outside of the battleship sinking, turn 1 was pretty typical. A ding here and there, but mostly just movement.
Article two of the return of my luck: the bomb. The Elves weren't as clumped this time around, so I only managed to hit a single squadron of destroyers, but oh how I hit them. I sank one and critted the other two, including holing one below. I also put another point on the destroyer I damaged in the first turn. The airship took some fire going in, but not enough to stop it.
Gorgor made what I can only call a mental error. He moved his dragon to the dead center of the board, leaving it out in the open. My cruisers moved up and fired on it, dealing some damage. Then my battleship followed suit and took the dragon out. Two turns, two threats neutralized. Things were going much better.
With the Elven cruisers in range of coming around the northern central island, I moved my frigates up to take cover behind said island. That position also allowed the frigates to fire on the bombed destroyers and take them out.
As I was taking this picture, it occurred to me that I hadn't lost a ship yet. At the same time, the Elves were down to two squadrons. The pendulum had swung back the other way and now I was on top. I started to feel bad about stomping around so much, but to be fair I had just received a similar stomping.
The hit parade continued as my cruisers landed a crit on the lead TE cruiser, setting it on fire. The fire went out when they activated, but they burned for a little bit all the same.
The Elves finally managed to sink one of my ships by pouring fire into my damaged cruiser. They started to run afoul of the wind here, which was satisfying as I was trying to make that happen from the outset.
One of the Elf destroyers rammed a frigate, but the result was inconclusive. I lost a crew member and did no damage in return. I had drawn Iron Shod Pointy End at the beginning of the game and wanted to send my battleship into the offending destroyer, but I was well short on range. I brought the airship around instead, firing ineffectively at the destroyer but critting a cruiser.
Since I couldn't make the ram work, I started to bring the battleship around towards the middle. I had a half dice shot at the rear cruiser, which did nothing. More importantly I had a full broadside on the destroyer that had rammed my frigate. Having taken a RB1 pounding, the destroyer sank, freeing my frigates from future boarding actions.
My frigates rounded the northern central island and fired on the rear cruiser, one of them in raking position. The cruiser went down under the hail of fire. This was the end of the turn, and Gorgor threw in the towel here.
This game was as unbalanced as the first one. My dice had returned to form, while Gorgor's were more like what he described as his usual dice luck. Things started bad for him when I sank his battleship with a lucky shot on one of the first activations of the first turn, and things went downhill from there. Outside of the questionable dragon move, I think he played a solid game, but again the weight of dice was crushing. I felt kinda bad after this trouncing, but seeing the relative points of the fleets in writing this up makes me feel a little better.
I'm on the fence about the destroyers. Their longish-ranged firepower leaves much to be desired. They have 3 AD each on their fore guns and rockets in RB2 which sounds formidable at first blush. But when you consider linking, it gets a little grimmer. The leading ship gets 4AD, while each linking ship adds only 2AD. This means that for my 2 ship squadron, 12 potential AD yield only 6 actual dice. That seems wrong somehow. In considering how to make this work better, I think that I might be better off firing two separate shots, leading with the rockets on one ship and linking in the guns on another. This yields two 4AD shots instead of the single 6AD shot from linking everything together. Granted 4AD won't do much to anything larger than a frigate, but it's an option. I'll probably end up leaving the destroyers in my tournament list for the extra card the squadron brings, but I'm seriously considering dropping them for a heavy cruiser now. I'll ponder it as the week goes by. I doubt I'll be able to get another game in before Saturday, much as I'd like to see how the list does with the heavy instead of the destroyers.
We chatted about our fleets as we reset the board. Gorgor talked about why he went for the Elves instead of Shroud Mages: sails. He wanted a wind-powered fleet, a sentiment that I can sympathize with. I picked up an Imperial Human starter fleet tonight, but that's for another post. He swapped the heavy cruisers for regular cruisers and added more destroyers. Given how well the destroyers had done for him in the first game, this was very understandable. His list was as such:
Battleship - 110
War Dragon - 65
3 Cruisers - 165
3 Crow Destroyers - 135
3 Crow Destroyers - 135
610 total
Wow, that is a big points difference. I pointed out that he needed a squad of frigates to meet the full requirements of the fleet composition document, but as usual I didn't really care what he took. Had I realized the points difference at the time, I would have said something about that, but I didn't notice it until writing the list just now. Chalk up another learning experience, knowing how much other fleets' ships are.
The terrain was the same as the first game. Figuring that the south was choked with dwarven bodies and wreckage, I decided to head for the northern part of the center instead. I deployed in such a way that I could go above of below the northern center island as the situation demanded. I planned to cross my battleship and cruisers immediately so I could use the cruisers to screen my battleship, which took a lot of fire in the first game. The wind was blowing towards the southwest, which meant it would actually affect things if I could keep the Elves on my left and force them to turn into the wind to come after me. The few times the Elves had run against the wind in the first game, the difference in speed was very noticeable, so I wanted to make it an issue as much as possible. Gorgor deployed on a slant that would allow him to cut through the middle and hit me with his broadsides as he passed, but would then require him to run into the wind to come around for another pass.
 |
| Setup. The Dragon had already moved before I took the picture. |
 |
| Take that destroyer! |
 |
| Take that battleship! |
 |
| End of turn 1. |
 |
| Kabooooooooooooom. |
 |
| Take that dragon! |
|
| Take some more of that destroyers! |
 |
| End of turn 2. |
 |
| Take the cruiser! |
The Elves finally managed to sink one of my ships by pouring fire into my damaged cruiser. They started to run afoul of the wind here, which was satisfying as I was trying to make that happen from the outset.
 |
| First blood for the Elves. |
 |
| Take that cruiser! |
 |
| Take that destroyer! |
 |
| Take that cruiser! Endgame. |
I'm on the fence about the destroyers. Their longish-ranged firepower leaves much to be desired. They have 3 AD each on their fore guns and rockets in RB2 which sounds formidable at first blush. But when you consider linking, it gets a little grimmer. The leading ship gets 4AD, while each linking ship adds only 2AD. This means that for my 2 ship squadron, 12 potential AD yield only 6 actual dice. That seems wrong somehow. In considering how to make this work better, I think that I might be better off firing two separate shots, leading with the rockets on one ship and linking in the guns on another. This yields two 4AD shots instead of the single 6AD shot from linking everything together. Granted 4AD won't do much to anything larger than a frigate, but it's an option. I'll probably end up leaving the destroyers in my tournament list for the extra card the squadron brings, but I'm seriously considering dropping them for a heavy cruiser now. I'll ponder it as the week goes by. I doubt I'll be able to get another game in before Saturday, much as I'd like to see how the list does with the heavy instead of the destroyers.
US Battle Report - A Night of Two Games, Part One
played two games tonight against Gorgor and his Elves. They were both 500 points and test run games for the tournament this weekend. I think VAtank and Kairaven were doing the same, so it was a night to work out some kinks. I had never played against Elves before, and Gorgor had never played against Dwarves, so it was a learning experience on both sides. My main aim here was to see how the destroyers worked, as I've been considering swapping them for a heavy cruiser. EV called off tonight, and I forgot to borrow his smoke and fire markers, so the pictures are not as pretty as usual since I was using scraps of paper as wreck markers. Lists, pictures, the whole nine, after the break.
My list was the 500 point tournament list from a post or three ago, but I'll reproduce it because I'm so considerate.
Battleship - 120
Airship - 85
2 Cruisers - 100
3 Frigates - 105
2 Destroyers - 90
500 total
Gorgor's list:
Battleship - 110
War Dragon - 65
2 Heavy Cruisers - 150
2 Frigates - 60
3 Crow Destroyers - 135
520 total. I hope I'm doing some wrong math here. I'm not sure that TW destroyers are 45 points, though I assume every race has them at 45. A quick look at the Spartan site tells me they are 45 each. Being down points makes me feel a little better about the result, but more on that later. I also think you need to take regular cruisers before you can take heavies, but not 100% sure that's how the Elves work. In any case, I knew that going in and wasn't concerned.
I had set the table up before hand. I went for as balanced and symmetrical a layout as possible. Gorgor was going to bring something other than the Dragon at first, but when I mentioned that I had never played against one he swapped it in. I knew the Elves were fast and wanted to get in close, which suited me well enough. I wanted to use the destroyers as a rearguard, twirling around behind the rest of the fleet to take advantage of their rockets and be ready to deal with any rakers or ships looking to ram me from behind. The wind was behind the Elves and didn't affect the game too much.
As usual, I planned to head to the center and use islands as possible. I had a vague idea of getting to the middle, then turning and trying to use the wind island to cover my rear. Gorgor looked set to head straight to the middle, but I assumed there would be some TE maneuvering shenanigans and they would come at me from an angle that wasn't immediately apparent.
The first turn went as first turns go. I lost a frigate to fire from the destroyers, but other than that it was all movement.
I didn't want to extend my frigates too much, so I spun them around to bring them back behind my battleship. I did a point on a destroyer as I retreated. In return, the destroyers came after my frigates, sinking one and putting a point of hull damage on another one.
Sinking stuff seemed like fun, so I thought I'd get in on the action with my own destroyers.
Seeing what you could call a "target rich enviornment," I send in the airship to drop the bomb. Between the bomb and the gunnery attacks that followed, I put some damage on the battleship and heavy cruisers, but didn't sink anything. This is as good a place as any to talk about dice for a minute. My dice are generally pretty hot, but this game I had mortal luck, possibly less than mortal. The bomb here is a witness to that. Granted I crit the heavies and the battleship, but I did nothing to the frigate. Most of my rolls came back below expected value, and I think I rolled more 1s in this game than I have in all my other US games combined. I ran a friend through a demo on Friday and was concerned that he may have mojoed my dice, or myself. Naturally enough, my streak of bad luck was matched by a streak of good luck from my opponent. It was like I was playing against myself. Half his dice came up 6s, every shot seemed to crit, things went poorly. Turns out Gorgor didn't have a firm grasp on the DF rules, so only the frigates got to shoot, which is perhaps the reason why my blimp survived to drop the bomb in the first place.
My battleship is accumulating damage and my frigates are almost finished, but I'm not feeling too bad at this point. Luck issues aside, my ships are about to have targets on both sides, allowing for multiple shots per activation. I'm putting damage on the TE battleship as well, though it doesn't show in the picture.
The TE destroyers set to work again, finishing off my frigates. These ships were pains the whole game. I never really concentrated fire on them, but I did get plenty of 'bonus' shots against them while I fired on the rest of the Elven fleet. Despite pouring buckets of dice at them, I didn't manage to do too much to them.
Remember when I called the destroyers pains? They became sharp pains a moment after sinking my last frigate when they crit one of my destroyers, causing a magazine explosion. While my battleship managed to escape damage, my other destroyer and cruisers weren't so lucky. With results like this mounting against me, my morale is flagging a bit.
My battleship gets involved. It doesn't do much against the TE battleship, but I do manage to finish off the already damaged destroyer. Small victory, but you take them where you find them.
With the Elven heavy cruisers still clustered, I send the airship in to try and sink them, or at least do some damage. What I didn't account for was that neither the heavies nor the frigates had activated yet, and my airship went down under their combined Defensive Fire, yet another marker of the way the current of luck was flowing this game.
Things turned viciously on me this turn. I ended up down two squadrons and all my remaining ships had damage on them, with my battleship leading the way with 5 hull damage (and 5 crew as well). Things look bad here, but I'm hoping they'll turn around.
Remember that bit about things turning around? That didn't happen so much. After my cruisers fail to damage the TE battleship again, the Dragon swoops in to board my battleship. I do get a bit of luck here. I'm down to 2 crew, while the dragon is undamaged and thus rolling 4 dice in the boarding action. I manage to kill 2 "crew," while the dragon only takes out one dwarf, so my battleship lives to fight another day. That other day comes quickly though, as my battleship still has to activate this turn. In that activation, I lose another crew and do no damage in return, leaving my battleship decrewed and drifting. It's a small consolation that flying models can't prize ships.
Things are pretty much over after turn 4, but I soldier on. My cruisers may be able to get a rake in on the TE battleship, so all isn't entirely lost, just most of it. My lead cruiser took some flavor of steering crit and has been drifting forward for a couple turns, so that was probably a bit of a pipe dream, beyond my inability to do any real damage with them. My destroyer is in an odd place because I had futilely used it to DF the dragon as it came in to take my battleship in the rear, and therefore couldn't fire this turn. I wanted to ram the TE destroyer, but didn't have the movement to get it done. Things could get hairy with it if my battleship drifted in front of it, but after a rules consultation we determined that you still "activate" derelict ships and they drift then, so I didn't have to worry about it after all. Most of the Elf fleet is coming around behind me to rake, but that doesn't disturb me as much as it would have if I had more ships left.
Another marker of my weird dice in this game was initiative. I kept winning it. Generally I lose every initiative roll, but do well on my other rolls, which is a trade I'm glad to make. I may or may not have won initiative this turn, but what I did do was try to ram the TE destroyer. I say try because I didn't manage to do it, the pointy-eared buggers teleported out of the way. I didn't get to ram, but I did get 2 whole dice of RB1 broadside on it, which was as ineffective as my shooting had been until then. The interesting thing was that Gorgor had left the destroyer in the path of my drifting battleship. I thought it would be fun to have them collide, which they did. What I didn't consider was the boarding action that would follow if I didn't sink the destroyer, and of course I didn't sink the destroyer. As a result, I effectively gave away my battleship as a prize. Yet another shining moment from this game.
To add some salt to the wound, the TE destroyer rammed my destroyer. Finally I find some luck and win the boarding action, decrewing the Elf ship for the loss of a single sailor and reclaiming my battleship at the same time.
Under normal circumstances I play games until the bitter end. Looking at the clock, I figured we would have enough time for a second game, but only if we started quickly. As such, I made it official and surrendered.
I got hammered in this game, that's really the only way to describe it. For the most part, I think my tactics and positioning were sound. I made a few activation order errors and similar gaffs, but those came after the bottom fell out in turn 2. I had lots of double shots lined up, but couldn't make any of them count. Meanwhile, my opponent seemed to crit with every shot he took. I don't like to blame dice or luck for results, but I'll do it in this case. My dice deserted me, and I ran full speed into a brick wall of 6s. I didn't even learn much from this game. Normally when I lose, I can tell why and derive some benefit from the experience. I guess at least I learned a bit about how the Elven dragon works and built some knowledge about the TE deck as well. A thoroughly disheartening result. and one that I think EV would have enjoyed watching had he been there. Fortunately for me, things went back to normal for our second game, but that's another report.
My list was the 500 point tournament list from a post or three ago, but I'll reproduce it because I'm so considerate.
Battleship - 120
Airship - 85
2 Cruisers - 100
3 Frigates - 105
2 Destroyers - 90
500 total
Gorgor's list:
Battleship - 110
War Dragon - 65
2 Heavy Cruisers - 150
2 Frigates - 60
3 Crow Destroyers - 135
520 total. I hope I'm doing some wrong math here. I'm not sure that TW destroyers are 45 points, though I assume every race has them at 45. A quick look at the Spartan site tells me they are 45 each. Being down points makes me feel a little better about the result, but more on that later. I also think you need to take regular cruisers before you can take heavies, but not 100% sure that's how the Elves work. In any case, I knew that going in and wasn't concerned.
I had set the table up before hand. I went for as balanced and symmetrical a layout as possible. Gorgor was going to bring something other than the Dragon at first, but when I mentioned that I had never played against one he swapped it in. I knew the Elves were fast and wanted to get in close, which suited me well enough. I wanted to use the destroyers as a rearguard, twirling around behind the rest of the fleet to take advantage of their rockets and be ready to deal with any rakers or ships looking to ram me from behind. The wind was behind the Elves and didn't affect the game too much.
As usual, I planned to head to the center and use islands as possible. I had a vague idea of getting to the middle, then turning and trying to use the wind island to cover my rear. Gorgor looked set to head straight to the middle, but I assumed there would be some TE maneuvering shenanigans and they would come at me from an angle that wasn't immediately apparent.
 |
| The lines are drawn. |
 |
| End of turn 1. |
 |
| Deadly pursuit. |
 |
| Destroyers destroying destroyers. |
Seeing what you could call a "target rich enviornment," I send in the airship to drop the bomb. Between the bomb and the gunnery attacks that followed, I put some damage on the battleship and heavy cruisers, but didn't sink anything. This is as good a place as any to talk about dice for a minute. My dice are generally pretty hot, but this game I had mortal luck, possibly less than mortal. The bomb here is a witness to that. Granted I crit the heavies and the battleship, but I did nothing to the frigate. Most of my rolls came back below expected value, and I think I rolled more 1s in this game than I have in all my other US games combined. I ran a friend through a demo on Friday and was concerned that he may have mojoed my dice, or myself. Naturally enough, my streak of bad luck was matched by a streak of good luck from my opponent. It was like I was playing against myself. Half his dice came up 6s, every shot seemed to crit, things went poorly. Turns out Gorgor didn't have a firm grasp on the DF rules, so only the frigates got to shoot, which is perhaps the reason why my blimp survived to drop the bomb in the first place.
 |
| The bomb, it is dropped. |
 |
| End of turn 2. |
 |
| Frigate destroyed. |
Remember when I called the destroyers pains? They became sharp pains a moment after sinking my last frigate when they crit one of my destroyers, causing a magazine explosion. While my battleship managed to escape damage, my other destroyer and cruisers weren't so lucky. With results like this mounting against me, my morale is flagging a bit.
 |
| Destroyers destroy a destroyer in spectacular fashion. |
 |
| Destroyer destroyed. |
With the Elven heavy cruisers still clustered, I send the airship in to try and sink them, or at least do some damage. What I didn't account for was that neither the heavies nor the frigates had activated yet, and my airship went down under their combined Defensive Fire, yet another marker of the way the current of luck was flowing this game.
 |
| Airship down? What's going on here? |
Things turned viciously on me this turn. I ended up down two squadrons and all my remaining ships had damage on them, with my battleship leading the way with 5 hull damage (and 5 crew as well). Things look bad here, but I'm hoping they'll turn around.
 |
| End of turn 3. |
 |
| What What (In the Butt) |
 |
| End of turn 4. |
Another marker of my weird dice in this game was initiative. I kept winning it. Generally I lose every initiative roll, but do well on my other rolls, which is a trade I'm glad to make. I may or may not have won initiative this turn, but what I did do was try to ram the TE destroyer. I say try because I didn't manage to do it, the pointy-eared buggers teleported out of the way. I didn't get to ram, but I did get 2 whole dice of RB1 broadside on it, which was as ineffective as my shooting had been until then. The interesting thing was that Gorgor had left the destroyer in the path of my drifting battleship. I thought it would be fun to have them collide, which they did. What I didn't consider was the boarding action that would follow if I didn't sink the destroyer, and of course I didn't sink the destroyer. As a result, I effectively gave away my battleship as a prize. Yet another shining moment from this game.
 |
| Injury, meet insult. |
To add some salt to the wound, the TE destroyer rammed my destroyer. Finally I find some luck and win the boarding action, decrewing the Elf ship for the loss of a single sailor and reclaiming my battleship at the same time.
 |
| Another very small victory. |
Under normal circumstances I play games until the bitter end. Looking at the clock, I figured we would have enough time for a second game, but only if we started quickly. As such, I made it official and surrendered.
 |
| Endgame. |
I got hammered in this game, that's really the only way to describe it. For the most part, I think my tactics and positioning were sound. I made a few activation order errors and similar gaffs, but those came after the bottom fell out in turn 2. I had lots of double shots lined up, but couldn't make any of them count. Meanwhile, my opponent seemed to crit with every shot he took. I don't like to blame dice or luck for results, but I'll do it in this case. My dice deserted me, and I ran full speed into a brick wall of 6s. I didn't even learn much from this game. Normally when I lose, I can tell why and derive some benefit from the experience. I guess at least I learned a bit about how the Elven dragon works and built some knowledge about the TE deck as well. A thoroughly disheartening result. and one that I think EV would have enjoyed watching had he been there. Fortunately for me, things went back to normal for our second game, but that's another report.
The Mistaken Goal Chart: The Swiss Army Knife of Parenting
I was firmly entrenched in the positive discipline method before I discovered the Mistaken Goal Chart, and now, I cannot imagine thinking through misbehavior without it.
First, what is a mistaken goal? The practitioners of positive discipline hold that behavior is purposive. That means that when a child does something inappropriate, she is trying to meet some need or want. She is trying to achieve a perceived value, even if the value isn't in her best interest or if her way of of trying to achieve it is inappropriate. The mistaken goal chart includes four possible reasons a child might misbehave: to get attention, to have power, to get revenge, or to give up and be left alone. There might be more reasons, but in my experience, these four are awfully common.
Because positive discipline is not permissive, the point of identifying a child's mistaken goal is not to ignore the behavior itself; inappropriate behavior must be stopped. The point is that when a parent or teacher has more information about why a child misbehaves, he can choose his explanations, tools, etc with more care and directly address the child's actual problem.
The first mistaken goal is called "undue attention." The child's goal is to get the attention of the parent or teacher, and it is "undue" because the call for attention is inappropriate. A baby crying for milk or a terrified child needing to feel protected from a big dog is not trying to achieve a mistaken goal; her goal is perfectly rational, and she needs "due attention." An example of undue attention might be a child who acts up when mom is on the phone because he doesn't like it when she is not available to answer his questions or look at his drawings.
Next is "misguided power." The child's goal is to have power over someone else or to prove that no one has power over him, and it is misguided because the child has chosen an inappropriate way to gain power and control. A child who fights getting dressed because he wants to pick out his own clothes is seeking legitimate power over his own body and choices. But a child who refuses to put his shoes own because he doesn't want to go in the car to pick up his brother from school might be an example of child seeing inappropriate power; he cannot have power over the schedules of everyone in the house.
The child who has the mistaken goal of "revenge" is trying to get even. She might be hurting and want to hurt others so they feel as bad as she does. An example of this would be a child whose feelings got hurt when her mom set a limit, and so she lashes out and tells her that she wants to go to her dad's house she to make mom feel just as bad as she feels. Not that that has ever happened here. Sigh. I can't think of a time that a child taking revenge would actually be okay, but I think the wrong the child wants to get revenge for could be real or just perceived. Either way the goal of revenge would be a mistaken one.
The last one is the hardest for me to get a handle on because it is so much rarer and more scary. A child who is acting based on "assumed inadequacy" has decided that she can't do things well and may as well not try. She may actually not have the skills to be a competent person, or she might have made a wrong judgment about herself. But either way she is acting as if she is inadequate. For example, a child might have decided that he is not able to make friends, and so he doesn't even attempt to get to know his classmates or the other kids on the playground. He assumes from the beginning that he will fail, and so he doesn't bother to put forth any effort.
To use the mistaken goal chart, a parent introspects about his own reaction to the child's misbehavior and uses his feelings as a clue about which mistaken goal a child might be trying to achieve. At first, I was very resistant to this part. After all, what do my feelings have to do with my child's motivations. But when I used the chart, I found that my feelings did seem to be good clues. After putting some thought into this, I came up with this explanation.
Our feelings are automatic responses to certain kinds of situations. Anger is our reaction to a perceived injustice. Sadness to a perceived loss of a value. Happiness to a perceived gain of a value. When our children misbehave and we react to it, we are reacting to more than just the momentary situation. Our subconscious has made a gazillion integrations about our child's behavior that we may not have consciously considered. Our emotional reaction is based on what we perceive in the moment and all the integrations we've made in the past, even subconscious ones. So, when I feel anger at Livy's misbehavior, it's a good starting point to look for some injustice against me, real or perceived.
Will our feelings always lead us to the right mistaken goal? Definitely not. That's why I think it is wise to use the mistaken goal chart as Jane Nelson and Lynn Lott intended, as a guide and a starting point, and not as a final answer. Our emotions are great indicators, but they aren't tools of cognition. The mistaken goal chart tells me that if I am challenged, it would be a good idea to look and see if Livy might be seeking misguided power. The feeling of being challenged might be based on something irrational, but, especially if the parent has been working hard on his psycho-epistemology and carefully evaluating his feelings through introspection, the feeling is likely to point to something real that is going on. The mistaken goal chart is a way to find a starting point for thinking about the child's goals.
What I find so valuable about the chart is that it helps me address the root of a child's problem and not just work on the symptoms. It's possible for the same behavior to come from any of the mistaken goals, and if the parent just punished or stopped the behavior without trying to understand the cause and work on it, the behavior (or one like it) is likely to happen again.
For example, a child might refuse to put away his dirty dishes in the dishwasher because of any of the mistaken goals. What follows might not actually be said or even understood completely by the child, but these are the things they might be thinking or saying or acting.
- Undue attention: "If I don't do it, mom will yell at me or help me do it. I don't care if it's negative attention, I just want her to focus on me right now."
- Misguided power: "You can't make me do it! You do it! You aren't the boss of me! I don't have to put away my dishes just because you say so!"
- Revenge: "You were working on your blog all day and didn't help me with my art project, so I'm not gonna do the dishes now!"
- Assumed inadequacy: "I will not do it right. I never do. So why bother?"
Instead of just getting mad and forcing the child to put the dishes away, a parent who figured out his child's mistaken goal could address the larger issue while still stopping the inappropriate behavior.
- In the case of undue attention, the parent might insist that the child put her own dishes away but make sure to spend some special time with the child at another time or do the dishes together while talking or singing. The limit is set about dishes, but the parent also knows that the child is craving more attention.
- In the case of misguided power, the parent might insist that the child put her own dishes away but talk with the child about whether she is feeling out of control of her own life. Maybe the child needs more choices about when and how to do the dishes or maybe the child is feeling out of control in some other area. The parent can search for a way to give the child a reasonable chance to feel powerful and in control if he knows that she is acting from misguided power.
- In the case of revenge, the parent can insist that the child put her own dishes away but talk about what might have hurt the child's feelings. If the parent finds out it was revenge for her all day blogging session, she can let the child know that is inappropriate and help her find other ways to express her anger. The parent can validate her feelings of anger.
- In the case of assumed inadequacy, the parent might break the job down into smaller steps that seem manageable or express confidence in the child or remind her of a time she succeeded. In the future, the parent can watch for times the child does really well with chores and point out to her that she is capable.
The mistaken goal chart has become a part of the way I see Livy's behavior, and it has enhanced my response to her. When I remember to see her behavior as goal directed, though mistaken, I stay calmer and am in a problem solving frame of mind. It also helps me to teach her about introspecting about her own motivations. When I know that she is acting out of revenge, I can help her to realize that she is feeling hurt and lashing out. Then we can address the hurt in a healthier way. I hope she won't have to learn to sort out her tangled motivations in her late 20s, as I did.
I don't always get it right, though, as I said above, and that is also good practice for both of us. She gets to see that adults screw up too (always a good lesson), and, even if she tells me that I am wrong about her motivation, I still encouraged her to introspect and figure out what it was. I really really like the times when we get good results whether I am wrong or right, so the Mistaken Goal Chart is my friend!
I use things I have learned from the chart all the time, but the best times to use it for me are the times when Livy is doing the same kind of behavior over and over. Those times when nothing is working, and I feel like I am going to sell her to the gypsies. I have never gone to the Mistaken Goal Chart at a time like that and not come back with a better understanding of what the underlying problem might be or a few new suggestions for what to do (yes, there are suggestions!! Woohoo!!).
I recommend that all parents and teachers take a good look at this chart and revisit it often, especially in hard times. It's applicable to every kind of situation. It gives you different tools depending on what the problem is. It's only one piece of paper, so it will fit in your purse or pocket. It's the Swiss Army Knife of parenting tools.
7/25/10
Weekend Update
Destroyers are painted and the first coat of varnish is drying. It's been oppressively hot here for the past couple weeks, but it rained earlier today so it's not quite so bad now. On the bad side, I may have pushed my "There's no such thing as too much varnish" idea too far. Things may look different when they've dried a little.
As the end of the month approaches, so too does the time for the final wave of reinforcements. While this slow growth experiment hasn't gone exactly like I'd hoped it would, it's been a good experience. It took a bit of convincing on EV's part to get me to try Uncharted Seas, but having done so I find that I really like the game. It has, for the most part, simple mechanics that are easy to learn, but still allow for depth in tactics. The models have grown on me, are quick to paint up, and look pretty good when you're done with them. Best of all, the models are fairly cheap and you don't need a bunch of them. I'll do up my total investment when I do the actual reinforcement post, but I'd guess I have maybe $150 invested in the game, including the rule book, which is a low gate to entry as far as war games go. But I should really save all the reflection for the last post in the 'series.' In the meantime, a couple lists.
First, what I'm currently considering my 1200 point list.
Flagship - 160
Battleship - 120
Battleship - 120
2 Heavy Cruisers - 170
2 Cruisers - 100
2 Cruisers - 100
Airship - 85
3 Frigates - 105
3 Frigates - 105
3 Destroyers - 135
1200 total
I'm on the fence about cruiser squadron composition, but I'm leaning towards 2 ship squadrons. The Krakens got the axe. They just haven't done what I've wanted them to and I'd rather have another frigate or two instead of some Krakens. I would like to try out the Belchers though. I think they might be better suited to what I want a sub to do.
Next some tournament lists. The 300 pointer, I have no idea what I'm going to do. Probably it will end up as a flagship and a battleship, with 20 wasted points. The idea behind that 300 point list keeps shifting though, with a new wrinkle that you can take literally whatever you want, faction be damned, though I think squadron size still counts. I'm somewhat tempted to get the battleship I'll need for the above list on Monday, get it painted for Saturday, and then run a pair of battleships and a pair of Martyr ships, but I'm far from sold on the idea just now. Hopefully it will be a non-issue as (currently) the top two players will each field a 600 point list against two of the lower players' 300 point lists. I certainly hope to be one of the top two, but things have changed a bit each time I've looked at them, so I may play this one by ear.
In the more concrete department, my 500 point list will look like this.
Battleship - 120
Airship - 85
2 Cruisers - 100
3 Frigates - 105
2 Destroyers - 90
500 total
This is the list that will see the most action, so I've spent the most time considering it. I'm still thinking about swapping the destroyers for a heavy cruiser though. I hope to get a test game in with the list tomorrow, and perhaps another game or three with it before Saturday. My 600 point list is the most settled, and the most conventional by my standards.
Battleship - 120
Airship - 85
2 Cruisers/1 Heavy Cruiser - 185
3 Frigates - 105
3 Frigates - 105
600 total
Both lists were engineered to have 5 squadrons, and therefore a max hand size to start the game. I could push the 600 list to 6 squads by running pairs of frigates instead of groups of 3, but I've found the pairs to be less than effective. I'm also not taking a flagship as I want the extra points. While a flagship is nasty, it's really not that much better than a battleship, and by not taking the flagship I can take an airship instead of a cruiser.
 |
| Ready to destroy. After some varnish, of course. |
First, what I'm currently considering my 1200 point list.
Flagship - 160
Battleship - 120
Battleship - 120
2 Heavy Cruisers - 170
2 Cruisers - 100
2 Cruisers - 100
Airship - 85
3 Frigates - 105
3 Frigates - 105
3 Destroyers - 135
1200 total
I'm on the fence about cruiser squadron composition, but I'm leaning towards 2 ship squadrons. The Krakens got the axe. They just haven't done what I've wanted them to and I'd rather have another frigate or two instead of some Krakens. I would like to try out the Belchers though. I think they might be better suited to what I want a sub to do.
Next some tournament lists. The 300 pointer, I have no idea what I'm going to do. Probably it will end up as a flagship and a battleship, with 20 wasted points. The idea behind that 300 point list keeps shifting though, with a new wrinkle that you can take literally whatever you want, faction be damned, though I think squadron size still counts. I'm somewhat tempted to get the battleship I'll need for the above list on Monday, get it painted for Saturday, and then run a pair of battleships and a pair of Martyr ships, but I'm far from sold on the idea just now. Hopefully it will be a non-issue as (currently) the top two players will each field a 600 point list against two of the lower players' 300 point lists. I certainly hope to be one of the top two, but things have changed a bit each time I've looked at them, so I may play this one by ear.
In the more concrete department, my 500 point list will look like this.
Battleship - 120
Airship - 85
2 Cruisers - 100
3 Frigates - 105
2 Destroyers - 90
500 total
This is the list that will see the most action, so I've spent the most time considering it. I'm still thinking about swapping the destroyers for a heavy cruiser though. I hope to get a test game in with the list tomorrow, and perhaps another game or three with it before Saturday. My 600 point list is the most settled, and the most conventional by my standards.
Battleship - 120
Airship - 85
2 Cruisers/1 Heavy Cruiser - 185
3 Frigates - 105
3 Frigates - 105
600 total
Both lists were engineered to have 5 squadrons, and therefore a max hand size to start the game. I could push the 600 list to 6 squads by running pairs of frigates instead of groups of 3, but I've found the pairs to be less than effective. I'm also not taking a flagship as I want the extra points. While a flagship is nasty, it's really not that much better than a battleship, and by not taking the flagship I can take an airship instead of a cruiser.
7/23/10
Thoughts on the Hierarchy of Knowledge
I hear talk about the hierarchy of knowledge all the time and what it means about this education program or the other. It is often used to stress the necessity of certain curricula or the wrongness of child-led learning. So, I want to explore this idea a little.
First, I went to the Lexicon to see what Ayn Rand had to say about the hierarchy of knowledge. These quotes are all from the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.
"Since the definition of a concept is formulated in terms of other concepts, it enables man, not only to identify and retain a concept, but also to establish the relationships, the hierarchy, the integration of all his concepts and thus the integration of his knowledge. Definitions preserve, not the chronological order in which a given man may have learned concepts, but the logical order of their hierarchical interdependence."
"To know the exact meaning of the concepts one is using, one must know their correct definitions, one must be able to retrace the specific (logical, not chronological) steps by which they were formed, and one must be able to demonstrate their connection to their base in perceptual reality."
"Concepts have a hierarchical structure, i.e., . . . the higher, more complex abstractions are derived from the simpler, basic ones (starting with the concepts of perceptually given concretes)."
So, in light of that bit of explanation, I want to ask a few clarifying (at least to me) questions.
1. Where does this hierarchy exist?
It lives in our brains. It is in that amazingly cool realm of mental constructs created using real world data. This is what it means for concepts to be objective. They are based on real facts, on things that really exist. And they are made using human mental processes. Not subjective (can't be based on any crazy thing a person might dream up), not intrinsic (the concepts and the order don't exist in nature independent of a human brain).
2. If the hierarchy is created and integrated in our own heads, why would we have to enter data in any particular order?
I don't think we do have to. In fact, I think people often learn based on the kinds of facts and experiences they encounter in their households and lives. They do not learn "out of order," as long as they integrate their knowledge logically. As Ayn Rand says, a person "must be able to retrace the specific (logical, not chronological) steps by which [their concepts] were formed, and one must be able to demonstrate [the concepts'] connection to their base in perceptual reality." It is the logical connections we make between our concepts that must be in a certain order, not their chronology. We can introduce any kind of knowledge that interests us into our heads; we just have to be aware of what we are introducing and conscious about integrating it with other things we know.
Rand's description of Gail Wynand's childhood and adolescence in The Fountainhead includes his reading habits. "Without advice, assistance or plan, he began reading an incongruous assortment of books; he would find some passage which he could not understand in one book, and he would get another on that subject. He branched out erratically in all directions; he read volumes of specialized erudition first, and high-school primers afterward. There was no order in his reading; but there was order in what remained in his mind."
What Ayn Rand describes is Wynand forming his hierarchy of knowledge. The disorder of his pursuit of facts did not negatively affect the order in which he held the fact in his mind because we must each create a logical hierarchy, no matter what facts we get or in what order we get them.
3. Wouldn't learning sometimes be more time-efficient if we go in the order another person has already figured out?
Certainly. But that isn't essential to correct understanding. A person might choose to save time and effort by using someone else's work as a way to study a subject. Another person might get joy out of figuring some part of it out by himself. Time efficiency and minimizing the effort required is only one way (though often a convenient way). If the goal is to get the info in order to do another value, the quickest and easiest seems best. But if the goal is different (not a specific value but enjoyment of the experience or honing one's skills), it might be better to tackle it in a different order.
History is a wonderful example. If the goal is to get a broad overview of history quickly in order to understand modern politics, it seems logical to learn the facts chronologically. But if the purpose is to deepen your enjoyment of traveling to American Revolution sights, it makes sense to begin where your interest lies. Your desire to learn about the Founding Fathers may take you back to Ancient Greece and Rome eventually, but it would be silly to start there, when you really want to know about Jefferson. There is no violation of the hierarchy of knowledge in this example. As long as you integrate your concepts logically, it doesn't matter the order in which you gather your info.
4. If people are exposed to ideas before they understand the underlying facts and concepts, won't that cause them to hold floating abstractions?
Hearing something that you don't have the facts to support is okay, as long as you say, "Well, I don't really understand that" or at least accept a tentative kind of knowledge about a subject. Tentative knowledge and unexplored concepts are not wrong. Floating abstractions (in the negative sense Objectivists speak of) are disconnected pieces of knowledge that a person pretends are grounded and certain. A floating abstraction requires evasion of the fact that the connection of the concept to reality are not known.
5. Should children be exposed to ideas that they don't have the facts to ground?
I don't think there is any way to avoid it. Does the infant understand the language you are speaking to him? No, but he will one day. Unless you are willing to lock children in a closet and then pass him facts through a cat door one at a time and in order, there is no way to keep children from hearing and absorbing words and ideas that they don't completely understand.
Not only is it impossible to prevent children from hearing things they don't understand, I think it beneficial for them to be exposed to them. I think the best way to learn Objectivism, for instance, is at the feet of adult Objectivists. There is no reason to protect children from hearing you and your partner and friends talking about politics, ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. If they ask questions, answer them at a level the child can understand. One day, they will have an adult's understanding, and how much easier it will have been to learn a little at a time as a part of daily life than to try to integrate it whole into already arranged minds, as most of us did.
Of course, there is no point in purposely presenting ideas to children that they are incapable of understanding. There is nothing wrong with a baby watching and listening to his sister working on phonics. But sitting the baby down to learn phonics is ridiculous. Why not choose something he can grasp, if you are choosing a topic of conversation with him? I wouldn't choose to bring up the Ground Zero Mosque with Livy, but if she hears Aaron and I talking about it, I will certainly answer her questions.
So how do we prevent them from settling for floating abstractions instead of real knowledge? Ask them questions. "How do you know that?" "What made you think that?" "Where's your evidence?" Explain things by linking to reality; giving reasons for your own actions, for your requests, for your ideas, for your choices, for the limits you set with them teaches children that human understanding requires concrete data and a logical progression from that data to the conclusion. Give examples of your own floating abstractions and how you have fixed them. "I used to believe in a god, but then I realized that there was no god I could see, touch, taste, hear, or smell in the world. I had been believing it all along without having any evidence! I'm glad I looked for evidence finally."
And finally, when a child says something he doesn't fully grasp, it isn't necessarily a floating abstraction. "When I grow up I am going to marry Daddy" is not floating; the child's understanding of marriage is very limited (people who live together and love each other), but it is grounded in reality (examples of mom and dad and others). It isn't floating at all, just immature. As the child grows, she will understand marriage more fully. No reason to keep that concept from her until she understands sex, legal contracts, child-raising, and monogamy.
There are plenty of other arguments about life-learning and child-led learning (which you can feel free to ask me about - formspring might be a good way), but I don't buy this one. The logical formation of a child's hierarchy of knowledge doesn't require encountering ideas in a pre-formed logical order.
First, I went to the Lexicon to see what Ayn Rand had to say about the hierarchy of knowledge. These quotes are all from the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.
"Since the definition of a concept is formulated in terms of other concepts, it enables man, not only to identify and retain a concept, but also to establish the relationships, the hierarchy, the integration of all his concepts and thus the integration of his knowledge. Definitions preserve, not the chronological order in which a given man may have learned concepts, but the logical order of their hierarchical interdependence."
"To know the exact meaning of the concepts one is using, one must know their correct definitions, one must be able to retrace the specific (logical, not chronological) steps by which they were formed, and one must be able to demonstrate their connection to their base in perceptual reality."
"Concepts have a hierarchical structure, i.e., . . . the higher, more complex abstractions are derived from the simpler, basic ones (starting with the concepts of perceptually given concretes)."
So, in light of that bit of explanation, I want to ask a few clarifying (at least to me) questions.
1. Where does this hierarchy exist?
It lives in our brains. It is in that amazingly cool realm of mental constructs created using real world data. This is what it means for concepts to be objective. They are based on real facts, on things that really exist. And they are made using human mental processes. Not subjective (can't be based on any crazy thing a person might dream up), not intrinsic (the concepts and the order don't exist in nature independent of a human brain).
2. If the hierarchy is created and integrated in our own heads, why would we have to enter data in any particular order?
I don't think we do have to. In fact, I think people often learn based on the kinds of facts and experiences they encounter in their households and lives. They do not learn "out of order," as long as they integrate their knowledge logically. As Ayn Rand says, a person "must be able to retrace the specific (logical, not chronological) steps by which [their concepts] were formed, and one must be able to demonstrate [the concepts'] connection to their base in perceptual reality." It is the logical connections we make between our concepts that must be in a certain order, not their chronology. We can introduce any kind of knowledge that interests us into our heads; we just have to be aware of what we are introducing and conscious about integrating it with other things we know.
Rand's description of Gail Wynand's childhood and adolescence in The Fountainhead includes his reading habits. "Without advice, assistance or plan, he began reading an incongruous assortment of books; he would find some passage which he could not understand in one book, and he would get another on that subject. He branched out erratically in all directions; he read volumes of specialized erudition first, and high-school primers afterward. There was no order in his reading; but there was order in what remained in his mind."
What Ayn Rand describes is Wynand forming his hierarchy of knowledge. The disorder of his pursuit of facts did not negatively affect the order in which he held the fact in his mind because we must each create a logical hierarchy, no matter what facts we get or in what order we get them.
3. Wouldn't learning sometimes be more time-efficient if we go in the order another person has already figured out?
Certainly. But that isn't essential to correct understanding. A person might choose to save time and effort by using someone else's work as a way to study a subject. Another person might get joy out of figuring some part of it out by himself. Time efficiency and minimizing the effort required is only one way (though often a convenient way). If the goal is to get the info in order to do another value, the quickest and easiest seems best. But if the goal is different (not a specific value but enjoyment of the experience or honing one's skills), it might be better to tackle it in a different order.
History is a wonderful example. If the goal is to get a broad overview of history quickly in order to understand modern politics, it seems logical to learn the facts chronologically. But if the purpose is to deepen your enjoyment of traveling to American Revolution sights, it makes sense to begin where your interest lies. Your desire to learn about the Founding Fathers may take you back to Ancient Greece and Rome eventually, but it would be silly to start there, when you really want to know about Jefferson. There is no violation of the hierarchy of knowledge in this example. As long as you integrate your concepts logically, it doesn't matter the order in which you gather your info.
4. If people are exposed to ideas before they understand the underlying facts and concepts, won't that cause them to hold floating abstractions?
Hearing something that you don't have the facts to support is okay, as long as you say, "Well, I don't really understand that" or at least accept a tentative kind of knowledge about a subject. Tentative knowledge and unexplored concepts are not wrong. Floating abstractions (in the negative sense Objectivists speak of) are disconnected pieces of knowledge that a person pretends are grounded and certain. A floating abstraction requires evasion of the fact that the connection of the concept to reality are not known.
5. Should children be exposed to ideas that they don't have the facts to ground?
I don't think there is any way to avoid it. Does the infant understand the language you are speaking to him? No, but he will one day. Unless you are willing to lock children in a closet and then pass him facts through a cat door one at a time and in order, there is no way to keep children from hearing and absorbing words and ideas that they don't completely understand.
Not only is it impossible to prevent children from hearing things they don't understand, I think it beneficial for them to be exposed to them. I think the best way to learn Objectivism, for instance, is at the feet of adult Objectivists. There is no reason to protect children from hearing you and your partner and friends talking about politics, ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. If they ask questions, answer them at a level the child can understand. One day, they will have an adult's understanding, and how much easier it will have been to learn a little at a time as a part of daily life than to try to integrate it whole into already arranged minds, as most of us did.
Of course, there is no point in purposely presenting ideas to children that they are incapable of understanding. There is nothing wrong with a baby watching and listening to his sister working on phonics. But sitting the baby down to learn phonics is ridiculous. Why not choose something he can grasp, if you are choosing a topic of conversation with him? I wouldn't choose to bring up the Ground Zero Mosque with Livy, but if she hears Aaron and I talking about it, I will certainly answer her questions.
So how do we prevent them from settling for floating abstractions instead of real knowledge? Ask them questions. "How do you know that?" "What made you think that?" "Where's your evidence?" Explain things by linking to reality; giving reasons for your own actions, for your requests, for your ideas, for your choices, for the limits you set with them teaches children that human understanding requires concrete data and a logical progression from that data to the conclusion. Give examples of your own floating abstractions and how you have fixed them. "I used to believe in a god, but then I realized that there was no god I could see, touch, taste, hear, or smell in the world. I had been believing it all along without having any evidence! I'm glad I looked for evidence finally."
And finally, when a child says something he doesn't fully grasp, it isn't necessarily a floating abstraction. "When I grow up I am going to marry Daddy" is not floating; the child's understanding of marriage is very limited (people who live together and love each other), but it is grounded in reality (examples of mom and dad and others). It isn't floating at all, just immature. As the child grows, she will understand marriage more fully. No reason to keep that concept from her until she understands sex, legal contracts, child-raising, and monogamy.
There are plenty of other arguments about life-learning and child-led learning (which you can feel free to ask me about - formspring might be a good way), but I don't buy this one. The logical formation of a child's hierarchy of knowledge doesn't require encountering ideas in a pre-formed logical order.
7/22/10
Podcast #9 (To Be Sung to the Tune of "Love Potion #9)
The newest podcast is up at the Cultivating the Virtues website. The section on logical consequences versus natural consequences is one of my favorite things we have done. Such a confusing issue, and I hope we have made it a little clearer. Let me know what you think!!
Backlog part 2: Terrain wrap-up
This has taken far too long, considering the terrain has been finished for nearly two weeks now. My last post about the islands saw them still pink and brown, waiting for some texture and paint. I wanted to have them finished for the start of gaming at the FLGS on Monday, but my weekend was slammed, so I enlisted EV to help finish them off. The first step was gathering materials, so we headed out to Walmart for paint and, perhaps, spackle. It took much longer than I expected to have paint mixed up, with most of the time being Walmart's computer analyzing a paint swatch and coming up with the proper mixture for it. I could understand if I was bringing in a teddy bear or blade of grass to have color matched, but I just plucked the swatch from the wall of samples there at Walmart, so you'd think they might have already had the formulas for those ready to go. Such was not the case. While we waited for the paint, EV and I discussed sealing the islands and how useful spackle would be. I wanted some sort of reinforcement on the islands, but wasn't sure what kind. EV had experience with spackle and said it wouldn't be much more durable than the foam itself, so in the end we decided to just go with the glue and paint that would eventually cover the islands. If things didn't work quite like I expected, I could always make more.
Our list of materials from Walmart was as such:
Gorilla Glue - $4.50
2 shades of brown flat latex interior wall paint in smallish tubs (perhaps 2 quarts each) - $12 for both
Elmer's Wood Glue - $3
2 shades of blue Apple Barrel acrylics in largish bottles (3-4 times as large as Vallejo bottles) - $4 for both
$23.50 total (with a bit of rounding)
Add this total with the $21 from the initial supply trip and the total layout was about $45. As you'll see I ended up with 8 islands and one lonely rock, which puts each island at a little over $5. This isn't bad in my book, but it's also not the whole story. After we left Walmart, we headed back to EV's place to put some work in. We covered the islands with streaks of the wood glue straight from the bottle, then used a brush and a bowl of watered down wood glue to spread the glue around into a mostly even layer except in places where I wanted to have a stone look. Then we covered the islands in Woodland Scenics Fine Ballast and left them to dry. Since I had work looming, this was the end of my involvement in the finishing of the islands, and also of my first hand knowledge of them, though I imagine EV will pop in and leave a comment to set straight anything I get wrong. I imagine he put another coat of glue on the islands after the first dried, though perhaps not, then covered them in the darker brown latex paint. After that dried, he probably hit them with the lighter brown latex paint, then added flock/static grass for the grassy areas. He had a couple different kinds of flock and clumped foliage that makes up the bits of forest. Somewhere around there he probably painted the rock bits black, then again with grey. I'd guess the water was done last, mostly because that's how I'd do it. That's about it, or so I imagine.
With all that in mind, you can see there are some hidden costs. I was set to get some brushes at Walmart, but EV said he was covered, so there's another couple bucks. EV also had all the flock and ballast, which saved a bit as well as the shakers of ballast are $10-12 a piece. If you really want to dig deep, there's the black and grey paint as well, though any self respecting gamer will have large quantities of black and white paint on hand, and probably grey too. I can safely add ~$25 to the total for materials I would have gotten if EV didn't have them at hand, so I'll round up and say $75 went into this project in one way or another. That'd be not quite $10 per island, which wouldn't be nearly as good as $5 a piece. But the other hidden factor here is how much I have left. I may have used 1/4 of the hardboard and foam. I haven't looked closely at the paint and glue to see how much is left, but the bag felt as heavy on the way to my house as it did when we left Walmart. I can reasonably expect to get another 30 islands or so out of the materials I have on hand (assuming I get some ballast of course), which would bring the total to around $2 per island when everything is done, and that's pretty good in my book.
As I've said before, this was my first attempt at making terrain of any kind. It was a good learning experience, and I think the finished islands look pretty good too. EV has been talking about doing taller islands with sheer cliff sides, which seems like a good idea. I certainly have far more foam than hardboard. I'd still like to do a lighthouse and some buildings/fortifications, and I've been thinking about pulling a dwarf mini from my pile to use as a big statue. Best of all, we have a sea board to use for US, and one that's easy to pack into a box lid and take wherever the game is. Now, finally, the pictures.
I think I may add a waterfall to this one where the crevice is. I think I'd paint the area blue, then put a layer of Elmers on top for the water effect, though I may end up painting the glue blue as well. Something for the future.
This one may get the waterfall treatment as well, as there's another crevice on the top layer here that doesn't really show up in the picture so well.
I really like the lonely rock. I hope to use it to great effect in a game sometime.
This is the first island I made, and the largest of the bunch.
The rocky backside of the first island.
And a group shot of all of them on the carpet, because I didn't want to unfold the cloth all the way.
Our list of materials from Walmart was as such:
Gorilla Glue - $4.50
2 shades of brown flat latex interior wall paint in smallish tubs (perhaps 2 quarts each) - $12 for both
Elmer's Wood Glue - $3
2 shades of blue Apple Barrel acrylics in largish bottles (3-4 times as large as Vallejo bottles) - $4 for both
$23.50 total (with a bit of rounding)
Add this total with the $21 from the initial supply trip and the total layout was about $45. As you'll see I ended up with 8 islands and one lonely rock, which puts each island at a little over $5. This isn't bad in my book, but it's also not the whole story. After we left Walmart, we headed back to EV's place to put some work in. We covered the islands with streaks of the wood glue straight from the bottle, then used a brush and a bowl of watered down wood glue to spread the glue around into a mostly even layer except in places where I wanted to have a stone look. Then we covered the islands in Woodland Scenics Fine Ballast and left them to dry. Since I had work looming, this was the end of my involvement in the finishing of the islands, and also of my first hand knowledge of them, though I imagine EV will pop in and leave a comment to set straight anything I get wrong. I imagine he put another coat of glue on the islands after the first dried, though perhaps not, then covered them in the darker brown latex paint. After that dried, he probably hit them with the lighter brown latex paint, then added flock/static grass for the grassy areas. He had a couple different kinds of flock and clumped foliage that makes up the bits of forest. Somewhere around there he probably painted the rock bits black, then again with grey. I'd guess the water was done last, mostly because that's how I'd do it. That's about it, or so I imagine.
With all that in mind, you can see there are some hidden costs. I was set to get some brushes at Walmart, but EV said he was covered, so there's another couple bucks. EV also had all the flock and ballast, which saved a bit as well as the shakers of ballast are $10-12 a piece. If you really want to dig deep, there's the black and grey paint as well, though any self respecting gamer will have large quantities of black and white paint on hand, and probably grey too. I can safely add ~$25 to the total for materials I would have gotten if EV didn't have them at hand, so I'll round up and say $75 went into this project in one way or another. That'd be not quite $10 per island, which wouldn't be nearly as good as $5 a piece. But the other hidden factor here is how much I have left. I may have used 1/4 of the hardboard and foam. I haven't looked closely at the paint and glue to see how much is left, but the bag felt as heavy on the way to my house as it did when we left Walmart. I can reasonably expect to get another 30 islands or so out of the materials I have on hand (assuming I get some ballast of course), which would bring the total to around $2 per island when everything is done, and that's pretty good in my book.
As I've said before, this was my first attempt at making terrain of any kind. It was a good learning experience, and I think the finished islands look pretty good too. EV has been talking about doing taller islands with sheer cliff sides, which seems like a good idea. I certainly have far more foam than hardboard. I'd still like to do a lighthouse and some buildings/fortifications, and I've been thinking about pulling a dwarf mini from my pile to use as a big statue. Best of all, we have a sea board to use for US, and one that's easy to pack into a box lid and take wherever the game is. Now, finally, the pictures.
I think I may add a waterfall to this one where the crevice is. I think I'd paint the area blue, then put a layer of Elmers on top for the water effect, though I may end up painting the glue blue as well. Something for the future.
This one may get the waterfall treatment as well, as there's another crevice on the top layer here that doesn't really show up in the picture so well.
I really like the lonely rock. I hope to use it to great effect in a game sometime.
This is the first island I made, and the largest of the bunch.
The rocky backside of the first island.
And a group shot of all of them on the carpet, because I didn't want to unfold the cloth all the way.
7/20/10
Backlog part 1: Warmachine Battle Report
Played a 35 pointer against EV on Friday, pIrusk vs. eStryker. I knew a little bit about Stryker going in, and EV is very enthusiastic about him in general, so I figured I'd be in for a tough fight. I was trying out Irusk for the first time. He is a different sort of caster than I've used before, more of a lead from the rear type. While I run Sorscha like that, she poses a very real assassination threat that Irusk doesn't. I run Sorscha as a support caster because I can, whereas I ran Irusk as a support caster because I had to. What a support caster though. His feat is impressive, as is his spell list. I had been meaning to try him out for a while, but having finally gotten the mini earlier in the week, I figured it was time to see what he was about. Unfortunately I have yet to assemble this new addition, but fortunately EV has a pIrusk that I was able to use.
One of Irusk's spells, Superiority, threw a bit of a wrench in my list building. I wanted to take a Destroyer with Irusk, but most of Superiority would have been wasted on a ranged jack, so I went with a Juggernaut instead. WGI were a must, as they're the only "core" infantry unit I have. I had picked up another Rocketeer when I got Irusk, but didn't have that model assembled either, so I ran just the one Rocketeer. My basic idea was to sit the WGI in the middle, then have the Doomies on one flank and the Juggernaut on the other, with Mortars and Widowmakers for support. My list:
pIrusk + 6
Juggernaut - 7
War Dog - 1
Doom Reavers - 6
DR UA - 2
Widowmakers = 4
Full WGI - 6
WGI UA and Rocketeer - 3
2 Mortars - 6
Kovnik Joe - 2
Manhuntress - 2
Widowmaker Marksman - 2
35 total
From his discussion of eStryker, I had expected a full-on melee list from EV. While it was mostly melee, there was some shooting in it. He ran:
eStryker + 6
Centurion - 9
Lancer - 6
Squire - 2
Stormblade Infantry - 5
Full Sword Knights - 6
Full Trenchers - 10
3 Stormsmith Stormcallers - 3
35 total
This was a different situation, with EV running more jacks than I did. Normally he's the one running a single heavy, or maybe a couple lights, while I pack in 2-3 heavy jacks. For deployment, I stuck the Widowmakers and their solo in the central woods, backed up by the WGI and Irusk. The mortars sat on either side of the woods to try and cover as many shooting lanes as possible. The Juggy was going to go up my left flank and wrap into the Cygnar line. The Doomies and Manhuntress went on my right flank to try and advance under cover so that something survived to apply some axe to mouth.
EV set his Trenchers in the woods in his deployment zone, then massed the rest of his forces on my right flank. I wasn't happy that the Trenchers would completely ignore my mortars, but I did like how everything else was in a compact little group. Setup:
Since my Widowmakers couldn't see anything else, they started firing on the Trenchers. Between cover and being dug in, it took some doing to hit them, but I still managed to off a pair.
That was all the action in the first turn. I put Iron Flesh on the WGI and Superiority on the Juggernaut. I tried for a lucky deviation with the northern mortar into the cluster of Cygnarans, but no luck. As is usual for first turns, this one was about advancing more than action. My southern mortar ran to get a better field of fire, and my Doomies and Manhuntress advanced into the buildings on the northern flank. End of turn 1.
EV's Stormblades come a little too close to the Doomies, and get charged for their troubles. I wanted to charge further into their formation, and some of the Stormsmiths as well, but I couldn't make it work without taking a bunch of free strikes. The charge went well, and the Doomies took out 3 Stormblades.
In the middle, the Widowmakers continued to thin out the Trenchers, killing another off. My Juggernaut doesn't have anything else to do, so it starts to move over to the Trenchers.
That big block of Sword Knights taunts me, still out of range of my mortars. I decide my WGI are going to stay put in the woods until the Swans get a bit closer. This effectively strands the Doomies and Manhuntress on the flank, but such is life for them. End of turn 2.
The Stormblade counter-charge comes, and is less than effective. One DR would have died, but I passed the first of many Tough checks, so I lost no psychotic criminals.
In my turn, I send the Juggernaut Trampling through the Trenchers, to great effect. They put a CRA into the Juggy during their turn, and did some decent damage, but it's still a very effective killing machine.
The Widowmakers continue to work on the Trenchers, killing another.
I didn't get a shot of it, but the Doomies massacred the Stormblades in the north. Despite my best efforts, EV managed to snipe my Manhuntress while she was deep in a building with one of his Stormsmiths. One day a Manhunter will do something other than die. In looking at this shot, I also not a distinct lack of Sword Knights. EV had moved them to where the lone survivor is in the shot below, and would have moved them further upfield, but he ran into Inhospitable Ground, which is just amazing. My mortars finally got their chance and cleared out most of the squad, as well as putting a bit of damage on the Lancer. At the end of turn 3 I already feel like I have things sewn up. My flanking force has taken out a squad and drawn Stryker away from where he was going so that he could deal with them. The Trenchers are basically finished, as are the Sword Knights. I've cleared out most of EV's infantry, and I may have lost a single DR in return, though it may have been just the Manhuntress. My heavy hitters, the Juggy and WGI, are more or less untouched and just waiting for targets to come into range. Things look real good. End of turn 3.
Action shots disappear after this, so I'm down to end of turn shots. There really isn't much going on. My Juggy trampled some more Trenchers, the Widowmakers and mortars put some small damage on the Cygnar jacks, and Stryker attempts to deal with the Doomies in the north. I manage to pass 4-5 Tough checks in a row to keep the squad alive, and Stryker pinned down for another turn. I still haven't taken many casualties, maybe 3 DRs and the Manhuntress. End of turn 4.
Here in turn 5 Stryker finishes off the DRs and what's left of the Cygnar force heads towards my still pristine WGI. The southern mortar runs again to cover the corridor between the northern terrain. My Juggernaut gets hit by some disruption effect, so it walks away from the remaining Trencher to finally engage with something of its own size. I've shuffled the WGI to the edge of the woods and opened lanes for them to exit through when the time comes. Throughout all this, Irusk just watches. He maintains his two upkeeps, and the "upkeep" on Inhospitable Ground, but does little other than that. End of turn 5.
Turn 6 is a lot like turn 1. It features plenty of movement, but not a lot of action. Stryker begins to move towards the Khadoran center, as do the Cygnar jacks. I start dropping mortars on the heavy, which I can reliably hit even with the mortar's RAT of 3, which is awfully nice. The damage is starting to add up on the Cygnaran jacks. I position my Juggernaut so that it can charge when the Cygnar jacks break cover. End of turn 6.
Here the Cygnar jacks break cover, and get mown down for their troubles. I forget exactly what finished the heavy, though I think it was a WGI CRA. Despite trying to hide my Juggernaut from those damnable Stormsmiths, I still get disrupted and am unable to charge again. End of turn 7.
Stryker joins the party, at long last. I keep hearing about his super armor and how he can wreck shop, but EV decides against it when he charges my Juggernaut. As such, I don't lose the jack as I had anticipated. This also means Stryker is hanging around with his ass in the wind, so my boys (and girls) move in for the kill. The Widowmakers shuffle out to make way for the WGI, and put a few points on Stryker in the process. Then the WGI comes out and puts another CRA into Stryker and that's the game. Endgame:
This one was really over in the second or third turn. When my DRs carved up the Stormblades, then the Sword Knights got hammered by mortars, that put EV in a huge hole. After that it was a waiting game for me. I plunked away with my mortars and Widowmakers, while the Juggernaut literally ran rough-shod over the Trenchers, all the while killing time until the Cygnaran big boys made their way to my woods. This was a much easier game than I had expected, coming into it with a new caster that I wasn't terribly familiar with and a list that I didn't work on as much as I normally would have. eStryker is arguably EV's favorite caster, or at least the one he talks about the most, so I was expecting to have my ass handed to me. But then the dice kicked in, as they so often do, and the tables turned quickly.
EV has been getting hammered a lot lately, and there seems to be little I can do about it. I don't let people win, and I don't handicap myself to give them an overwhelming advantage either. In this game I took a caster I had never used and built a list that wasn't as sharp as I normally would have made, but I still ended up winning by a mile. I've entertained thoughts of using Zerkova, who is reportedly Khador's worst caster, but that falls under "excessive handicap." It may be as simple as me having hot dice while EV has ice cold dice, but there's nothing I can do about that either. I hate to be party to ruining a friend's fun, especially when I'm not trying to. EV has been talking about Malifaux a lot lately, which I don't think uses dice at all, so maybe we'll give that a go, though I'm not thrilled about system hopping through the wargaming landscape. Maybe we'll come to some resolution that works for everyone.
One of Irusk's spells, Superiority, threw a bit of a wrench in my list building. I wanted to take a Destroyer with Irusk, but most of Superiority would have been wasted on a ranged jack, so I went with a Juggernaut instead. WGI were a must, as they're the only "core" infantry unit I have. I had picked up another Rocketeer when I got Irusk, but didn't have that model assembled either, so I ran just the one Rocketeer. My basic idea was to sit the WGI in the middle, then have the Doomies on one flank and the Juggernaut on the other, with Mortars and Widowmakers for support. My list:
pIrusk + 6
Juggernaut - 7
War Dog - 1
Doom Reavers - 6
DR UA - 2
Widowmakers = 4
Full WGI - 6
WGI UA and Rocketeer - 3
2 Mortars - 6
Kovnik Joe - 2
Manhuntress - 2
Widowmaker Marksman - 2
35 total
From his discussion of eStryker, I had expected a full-on melee list from EV. While it was mostly melee, there was some shooting in it. He ran:
eStryker + 6
Centurion - 9
Lancer - 6
Squire - 2
Stormblade Infantry - 5
Full Sword Knights - 6
Full Trenchers - 10
3 Stormsmith Stormcallers - 3
35 total
This was a different situation, with EV running more jacks than I did. Normally he's the one running a single heavy, or maybe a couple lights, while I pack in 2-3 heavy jacks. For deployment, I stuck the Widowmakers and their solo in the central woods, backed up by the WGI and Irusk. The mortars sat on either side of the woods to try and cover as many shooting lanes as possible. The Juggy was going to go up my left flank and wrap into the Cygnar line. The Doomies and Manhuntress went on my right flank to try and advance under cover so that something survived to apply some axe to mouth.
EV set his Trenchers in the woods in his deployment zone, then massed the rest of his forces on my right flank. I wasn't happy that the Trenchers would completely ignore my mortars, but I did like how everything else was in a compact little group. Setup:
Since my Widowmakers couldn't see anything else, they started firing on the Trenchers. Between cover and being dug in, it took some doing to hit them, but I still managed to off a pair.
That was all the action in the first turn. I put Iron Flesh on the WGI and Superiority on the Juggernaut. I tried for a lucky deviation with the northern mortar into the cluster of Cygnarans, but no luck. As is usual for first turns, this one was about advancing more than action. My southern mortar ran to get a better field of fire, and my Doomies and Manhuntress advanced into the buildings on the northern flank. End of turn 1.
EV's Stormblades come a little too close to the Doomies, and get charged for their troubles. I wanted to charge further into their formation, and some of the Stormsmiths as well, but I couldn't make it work without taking a bunch of free strikes. The charge went well, and the Doomies took out 3 Stormblades.
In the middle, the Widowmakers continued to thin out the Trenchers, killing another off. My Juggernaut doesn't have anything else to do, so it starts to move over to the Trenchers.
That big block of Sword Knights taunts me, still out of range of my mortars. I decide my WGI are going to stay put in the woods until the Swans get a bit closer. This effectively strands the Doomies and Manhuntress on the flank, but such is life for them. End of turn 2.
The Stormblade counter-charge comes, and is less than effective. One DR would have died, but I passed the first of many Tough checks, so I lost no psychotic criminals.
In my turn, I send the Juggernaut Trampling through the Trenchers, to great effect. They put a CRA into the Juggy during their turn, and did some decent damage, but it's still a very effective killing machine.
The Widowmakers continue to work on the Trenchers, killing another.
I didn't get a shot of it, but the Doomies massacred the Stormblades in the north. Despite my best efforts, EV managed to snipe my Manhuntress while she was deep in a building with one of his Stormsmiths. One day a Manhunter will do something other than die. In looking at this shot, I also not a distinct lack of Sword Knights. EV had moved them to where the lone survivor is in the shot below, and would have moved them further upfield, but he ran into Inhospitable Ground, which is just amazing. My mortars finally got their chance and cleared out most of the squad, as well as putting a bit of damage on the Lancer. At the end of turn 3 I already feel like I have things sewn up. My flanking force has taken out a squad and drawn Stryker away from where he was going so that he could deal with them. The Trenchers are basically finished, as are the Sword Knights. I've cleared out most of EV's infantry, and I may have lost a single DR in return, though it may have been just the Manhuntress. My heavy hitters, the Juggy and WGI, are more or less untouched and just waiting for targets to come into range. Things look real good. End of turn 3.
Action shots disappear after this, so I'm down to end of turn shots. There really isn't much going on. My Juggy trampled some more Trenchers, the Widowmakers and mortars put some small damage on the Cygnar jacks, and Stryker attempts to deal with the Doomies in the north. I manage to pass 4-5 Tough checks in a row to keep the squad alive, and Stryker pinned down for another turn. I still haven't taken many casualties, maybe 3 DRs and the Manhuntress. End of turn 4.
Here in turn 5 Stryker finishes off the DRs and what's left of the Cygnar force heads towards my still pristine WGI. The southern mortar runs again to cover the corridor between the northern terrain. My Juggernaut gets hit by some disruption effect, so it walks away from the remaining Trencher to finally engage with something of its own size. I've shuffled the WGI to the edge of the woods and opened lanes for them to exit through when the time comes. Throughout all this, Irusk just watches. He maintains his two upkeeps, and the "upkeep" on Inhospitable Ground, but does little other than that. End of turn 5.
Turn 6 is a lot like turn 1. It features plenty of movement, but not a lot of action. Stryker begins to move towards the Khadoran center, as do the Cygnar jacks. I start dropping mortars on the heavy, which I can reliably hit even with the mortar's RAT of 3, which is awfully nice. The damage is starting to add up on the Cygnaran jacks. I position my Juggernaut so that it can charge when the Cygnar jacks break cover. End of turn 6.
Here the Cygnar jacks break cover, and get mown down for their troubles. I forget exactly what finished the heavy, though I think it was a WGI CRA. Despite trying to hide my Juggernaut from those damnable Stormsmiths, I still get disrupted and am unable to charge again. End of turn 7.
Stryker joins the party, at long last. I keep hearing about his super armor and how he can wreck shop, but EV decides against it when he charges my Juggernaut. As such, I don't lose the jack as I had anticipated. This also means Stryker is hanging around with his ass in the wind, so my boys (and girls) move in for the kill. The Widowmakers shuffle out to make way for the WGI, and put a few points on Stryker in the process. Then the WGI comes out and puts another CRA into Stryker and that's the game. Endgame:
This one was really over in the second or third turn. When my DRs carved up the Stormblades, then the Sword Knights got hammered by mortars, that put EV in a huge hole. After that it was a waiting game for me. I plunked away with my mortars and Widowmakers, while the Juggernaut literally ran rough-shod over the Trenchers, all the while killing time until the Cygnaran big boys made their way to my woods. This was a much easier game than I had expected, coming into it with a new caster that I wasn't terribly familiar with and a list that I didn't work on as much as I normally would have. eStryker is arguably EV's favorite caster, or at least the one he talks about the most, so I was expecting to have my ass handed to me. But then the dice kicked in, as they so often do, and the tables turned quickly.
EV has been getting hammered a lot lately, and there seems to be little I can do about it. I don't let people win, and I don't handicap myself to give them an overwhelming advantage either. In this game I took a caster I had never used and built a list that wasn't as sharp as I normally would have made, but I still ended up winning by a mile. I've entertained thoughts of using Zerkova, who is reportedly Khador's worst caster, but that falls under "excessive handicap." It may be as simple as me having hot dice while EV has ice cold dice, but there's nothing I can do about that either. I hate to be party to ruining a friend's fun, especially when I'm not trying to. EV has been talking about Malifaux a lot lately, which I don't think uses dice at all, so maybe we'll give that a go, though I'm not thrilled about system hopping through the wargaming landscape. Maybe we'll come to some resolution that works for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
