The goals really depend on the faction you pick. They all pretty much want to conquer the universe- I haven’t played the campiagns, I prefer skirmish mode myself, so I couldn’t tell you the campaign story. In general, thou8gh, these factions have been fighting for enough thousands of years that they the original point is lost, I reckon. Warhammer has been around in one form or another for a couple decades now, I’m sure there msut be somewhere you could read about the story!
détrop,
I doubt that you’ve read my intro post, but I certainly never claimed psychic powers. I think that’s nonsense.
I do believe that it’s possible and even easy to strip down the factors in any given situation, and then based on patterns related to the factors, make predictions about potential outcomes.
It is also my idea that the brain takes information and then somehow assembles the factors into seemingly sudden conclusions. In fact, I think that this is mistakenly seen as psychic powers by some people, and ambiguously called intuition by some.
Basically, I developed my techniques from combat experience. That’s because when you’re in danger, a smart person, gets right down to the important details and then makes predicts that will or won’t save their life.
So, the Ork prediction in this thread was based on my method. Most philosopher aren’t restrictive people that would enjoy playing on the side of some restrictive regime, so the wild, if evil, Ork, makes the most sense.
Agreed.
Damn skippy.
(my italics)
See, I can’t agree with that. No problem though.
That certainly was quick!
Do you not believe or support the phrase “makes sense” for some philosophical reason, because I’m using it in its most mundane conversational way.
You have to know that I can’t know for sure what you mean by “restrictive,” not to mention why “wild” necessarily denotes “evil” and why Ork’s are necessarily evil.
Come on, P, you know its not that simple. My point is that if you were correct in your prediction, it isn’t necessarily because of the associations you made.
Think of a placebo test. I could convince you that you were a Tarus even if you were a Libra, and you would still find a way to say “hey, that does sound like me, to a tee!”
I see your point, but I believe that people telegraph certain aspects of themselves by way of preferences. A philosopher has, or should have, a wild mind.
He’s an Ork!
If he’s not then maybe he should be, if you get me mate!
Sure, I agree, but among those aspects are several which could lead to the same conclusion without having any consideration of those associations you happened to make at the time instead.
For instance, you coulda thought “philosophers usually have beards” and “Orks are usually hairy,” and made a connection there.
Are you familiar with Hume? He was a scottish dude who proved that predictions are only always as good as the inductions made about them. In Hume’s model, the cause of your being correct in the prediction can be for reasons you are completely unaware of, which is the reverse of the induction in praxis; you can only assume that effect X was caused by Y; you can only assume that Uccisore plays an Ork character because he is a philosopher and philosophers like freedom, et cetera.
You could find out later, but then its post hoc, of course, and no longer a prediction.
Yes, the problem with Hume and so many of the fields inspired by him is that action is brought to a halt, or worse is made halting.
I tend to look at life as an emergency and the players in it need to act quickly. I’ve noticed in South America that when the Indian population saw trouble coming they would act to eliminate it, to the extent of their means of course.
In the west people tend to do very little. Some think that 911 was an inside job and others think that terrorists did it, but how many people in the US are taking direct action to solve the problem?
I understand that Hume battled with religious thinkers of the time that were drawing kinds of conclusions about causes, but that has little to do with the practical world.
Your Orks and beards example is a misapplication of my system. That’s because a beard does not define the core essence of a philosopher. The idea of freedom may not be the core motivation of a philosopher, but it certainly is at the core.
If you want to understand a philosopher and how they might choose certain things and you based your analysis on the “beard” factor then your strategy would fail, because it’s shallow. Like an artist, the predictor has to understand the bones and muscles to draw the flesh.
Isn’t that deep?
Not really, because most people can do it.