Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

[Regash]

Sorry, but NTBB or CRP+ is all "plasmoids house rules" in my mind.
Can't tell them apart if my life depended on it...

[Ksprbgh]

[de-lurking]

Hi guys

This perhaps belongs in another thread - but the Khorne discussion got de-railed severel pages back, so here goes:

I have to admit that the amount of scrutiny that CRP+ is subjected to, from a few people here, is amazing and somewhat confusing to me.

By giving this set of house rules SO MUCH attention for SO LONG to SUCH HIGH standards in SO MANY threads and with SUCH CREATIVITY, it seems to me that the critics give CRP+ a lot of free publicity. It confuses me.

It also makes me happy, because I think it has helped give these rules a level of recognition and officialness (officiality?) that goes far, far beyond what a name or statistical evidence or what-have-you could ever achieve.

I like the CRP+ rules. I like NTBB (the 2013 version a lot better than the current version). My league play with both. I also quite like Martin, so I am biased as well as confused and happy.

Oh - and if someone were to make a set of rules and called them LRB7 and they were crap, noone would care. If Dode74s LRB7 was as good as or better than Plasmoids CRP+, a lot of people would use them and be happy. I think the fact that this silly non-point about the name has even appeared in the discussion just proves that you are annoyed/bothered/scared because CRP+ are used widely (thanks in part to the PR you are giving it).

Finally, back on point: I personally hate the Khorne team - rules and fluff both - and hope to see it disappear, but it doesn't define my Blood Bowl experience, and it wouldn't break the game if they were to become official. Neither will the silly Bretonnian team.

/Kasper

[re-lurking]

[Vanguard]

Have to agree. Plasmoid's rules have attracted more scrutiny and statistical analysis than I suspect any version of the LRB has.
I am consistently impressed by the fact he continues to respond in these threads that at times fell a little like anti-CRP+ trolling rather than reasoned, constructive debate.

On the topic of the name, given the original basis for the CRP+ rules were possible developments the BBRC were intending to look at, I fully understand why he would have thought CRP+ was an appropriate name. Could people mistake them as being in some way official? Sure, people will always make mistakes. Did Plasmoid set out to fool people into thinking he had some official mandate to produce new BB rules? No, I don't think so. He's since gone out of his way to spell it out in way more detail than I think is required.

Sorry, but NTBB or CRP+ is all "plasmoids house rules" in my mind.
Can't tell them apart if my life depended on it...

Frankly, responsibility for that sits with you. I really feel Plasmoid has done all that could be asked of him (and more) to make it clear.

[Wifflebat]

I got back into Blood Bowl last year after a long absence from the game. I'd been aware of the first couple of LRBs, but wasn't turned on by any of the changes, so I'd ignored them while playing with the couple of friends who I played with, then I stopped playing entirely for years.

So, I got back into it--rejoined the NAF, went to my first tournaments, checked out all the web forums, stores, and archives. When I found Plasmoid's site, I checked out his rules. And, for those concerned, I:

1) Immediately understood they were nonofficial;
2) Understood the difference between CRP+ and NTBB, and
3) Thought they all seemed reasonable, even though I'd probably not use them in play.

I see a lot of what seems like concern trolling here, fueled by some kind of general rage at Plasmoid's rules. But here's the thing--if people who don't know what the official rules are find Plasmoid's rules and play them as official, it won't matter one bit, because they'll either run into people who tell them what the correct official rules are and make the minor adjustments, or they'll happily play with them as house rules and never get involved in the larger scene. Players branching out into the larger Blood Bowl world will be expecting things to be different and not inclined to start a rebellion to keep rules they find out nobody uses, even if they somehow believed they were official.

I see posts on BoardGameGeek all the time from people who don't know, or don't use the current rules; they don't know there are tournaments, or the NAF, or anything like that. And they're fine. That's not a sign of a "fragmented player base." What will fragment the player base is a large chunk of us--the people who are willing to throw ourselves into this--having a "take the ball and go home" attitude about things. If players begin refusing to go to tournaments any more because the NAF allows Khorne teams in tournaments (or doesn't), or stop playing because they can't play the same rules on FUMBBL that they play in a tabletop tournament, or some such thing, that will cause a rift in the "community" that we know. Like it or not, we're only one of several--maybe tons of--Blood Bowl communities. And us is who we need to worry about. We need to keep our largish, devoted group of Blood Bowl fans working together, and ideally, finding a place where we can agree on what Blood Bowl needs to be, and any changes that we might want for the future.

And on a personal note, I'd like to suggest that maybe not bickering with other people when we're all passionately devoted to the same game might be a good idea as well.

[koadah]

CRP+ & NTBB are the established names now.

If it is that big a deal take him to court.

[VoodooMike]

Blah blah blah blah....

It's always nice to have the folks who "ain't interested in nun of that thar book learnin'" stuff single themselves out. Sadly, stating that someone is a really nice guy, in your opinion, doesn't really support intellectual concepts to people who don't already believe in them... instead they're just an excuse for people whose IQ is too low, or who are too intellectually lazy to properly question their established beliefs.

One thing that does need to be clarified, since... well... it's total shite:

Plasmoid's rules have attracted more scrutiny and statistical analysis than I suspect any version of the LRB has.

Apparently you haven't wrapped your head around the fact that exactly no statistical analysis has been done on plasmoid's rules and that's a big part of the numbers people's point - not only can't any be done, but there's no metric to allow for it in future. All the stats that have been used are statistics related to the actual rules of BB, CRP and LRB5 at varying times, not anything related to his particular brand of garbage.

The reason the actual statistics have been used more often with plasmoid's garbage than other people's is that most people actually listen... they don't then try to rephrase their same bullcrap in a way that makes it sound like it has adapted to the information but really is just more of the same. It's like using a dry mop to clean up diarrhea.... its just moving it all around, it isn't accomplishing anything - and in this particular case, much of that pointless moving around is deliberate obfuscation on his part because he isn't ready to go back to the drawing board, but likewise can't seem to reconcile his existing garbage with the numbers.

It's like watching Wile E. Coyote in action... if the 'ol coyote had a pack of stupid people who also expected the bird magnet to actually work this time.

[koadah]

All that thar book learning is overrated. We're talking about playing a game and enjoying it. Not putting a man on the moon or returning him safely to the earth.

If you and your league prefer whatever ruleset then use it. What ever the numbers say.

[GalakStarscraper]

Have to agree. Plasmoid's rules have attracted more scrutiny and statistical analysis than I suspect any version of the LRB has.
I am consistently impressed by the fact he continues to respond in these threads that at times fell a little like anti-CRP+ trolling rather than reasoned, constructive debate.

I disagree. During the Vault days and the year after a lot of crunching and scrutiny happened (more so than with Plasmoid's suggestions because everyone KNEW they were going to become the new rules and so had a vested interest in them). Take the threads on TFF and multiple by 10 for the scrutiny factor.

As for the trolling ... that comes with the territory of being the guy shown at the head of changing the rules. At least it hasn't reached the point where someone hoping he be murdered by eaten alive by pigs which is one memorable comment during the Vault days.

[plasmoid]

Hi Kasprbgh, Vanguard, Wifflebat and Koadah.
Thanks for making a few points that would have been rendered irrelevant if I had been the one making them.
Also, thanks for sticking your neck out.
I won't pretend that I get oodles of supportive PM's/emails, but when I do, it is usually from people who would rather not put themselves in a position to get attacked.

VoodooMike demonstrates that point rather elegantly.

Mike - you're presuming that Vanguard and others somehow misunderstand what I use statistics for, even though it is very plainly spelled out on the site. Are you in the habit of assuming that other people are stupid? Must be due to your personal brilliance.

I'm a little baffled as to why you consider my use of CRP statistics sinister, since you personally was the one above all other who commanded me to go back and use the tons of existing CRP data that we have available to shape my rules, back prior to NTBB2014. So I did.

I also made changes to NTBB explicitly due to the data you had me analyze.

Thanks all
Martin

[dode74]

Vanguard

Plasmoid's rules have attracted more scrutiny and statistical analysis than I suspect any version of the LRB has.

They have had precisely NO statistical analysis. That's part of the problem.

I fully understand why he would have thought CRP+ was an appropriate name. Could people mistake them as being in some way official? Sure, people will always make mistakes. Did Plasmoid set out to fool people into thinking he had some official mandate to produce new BB rules? No, I don't think so. He's since gone out of his way to spell it out in way more detail than I think is required.

I understand it too, but the name is his responsibility regardless of intent. If people are confusing it then it is his responsibility to be clear.

Wifflebat

But here's the thing--if people who don't know what the official rules are find Plasmoid's rules and play them as official, it won't matter one bit, because they'll either run into people who tell them what the correct official rules are and make the minor adjustments, or they'll happily play with them as house rules and never get involved in the larger scene.

That's great up to the point at which Cyanide start using them (albeit with the caveat I mentioned earlier from plasmoid), making them seem even more official to people who have never even played the game, and the name doesn't help.

koadah

CRP+ & NTBB are the established names now.

So was Marathon and Jif. These things can change.

plasmoid

I'm a little baffled as to why you consider my use of CRP statistics sinister, since you personally was the one above all other who commanded me to go back and use the tons of existing CRP data that we have available to shape my rules, back prior to NTBB2014. So I did.

Then you don't understand the complaint, even though he underlined it.

[VoodooMike]

All that thar book learning is overrated. We're talking about playing a game and enjoying it. Not putting a man on the moon or returning him safely to the earth.

And yet the world has found, time and time again, that proper, objectively valid design is less likely to lead to problems in the long run than faith-based design. It's why when we need a bridge built our go-to people are engineers not priests.

If you and your league prefer whatever ruleset then use it. What ever the numbers say.

It all still hinges on objective metrics whether you're smart enough to understand it or not. You don't adopt replacement rules without a reason, and the reason is that they're "better" or "more fun" both of which are implied positive changes in a stated, quantifiable metric. If you don't really have an objective metric, and you have no numbers to support the positive change, then you're nothing but a snake oil salesman and you're relying on people being too dumb to realize it.

Mike - you're presuming that Vanguard and others somehow misunderstand what I use statistics for, even though it is very plainly spelled out on the site. Are you in the habit of assuming that other people are stupid? Must be due to your personal brilliance.

I'm presuming they don't understand statistics enough to understand why they're relevant, and have decided that anything they don't understand must not be important. You can throw Koadah into that mix, too.. and yourself. That is, in fact, wretched stupidity... and its not the result of you being born stupid, it's the result of you settling into a routine of intellectual laziness combined with arrogance.

You need the keen, inquisitive mind and the willingness to do the work to back up that arrogance. That, my friend, is my "personal brilliance".

I'm a little baffled as to why you consider my use of CRP statistics sinister, since you personally was the one above all other who commanded me to go back and use the tons of existing CRP data that we have available to shape my rules, back prior to NTBB2014. So I did.

Because, and this is repeat of what you've been told over and over, tacking on numbers doesn't turn your crap into statistics based design. In fact, gluing in tables of numbers that you don't understand, and which quite often aren't relevant to what you're associating them with, is outright dishonesty. It's exactly what they're talking about with the adage "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics". It's not that statistics are inherently dishonest, its that dishonest people like to couch their dishonesty behind numbers, because most people assume it means they have a solid foundation and don't look any further.

You didn't go back, do analyses, and then build your rules around what the numbers showed. You went back and looked for numbers that would help support what you'd already decided was right. That's not evidence-based design... you don't decide on the answer first then try to find numbers to go with it, discarding the stuff that doesn't agree as "irrelevant".

You periodically change the year on the bottle, but its still the same snake oil.

[koadah]

All that thar book learning is overrated. We're talking about playing a game and enjoying it. Not putting a man on the moon or returning him safely to the earth.

And yet the world has found, time and time again, that proper, objectively valid design is less likely to lead to problems in the long run than faith-based design. It's why when we need a bridge built our go-to people are engineers not priests.

Fair enough. But a game does not have the safety implications that a bridge has. It seems that in this case people will spends years arguing about the numbers without anything being built.

Plasmoid has at least done something. But if it turns out to be no good no one drowns.

If you and your league prefer whatever ruleset then use it. What ever the numbers say.

It all still hinges on objective metrics whether you're smart enough to understand it or not. You don't adopt replacement rules without a reason, and the reason is that they're "better" or "more fun" both of which are implied positive changes in a stated, quantifiable metric. If you don't really have an objective metric, and you have no numbers to support the positive change, then you're nothing but a snake oil salesman and you're relying on people being too dumb to realize it.

Oh OK. But as long as you keep the numbers simple. Like "Who prefers this one to old one? Raise your hands."
None of that clever statistics stuff.

[Vanguard]

Plasmoid's rules have attracted more scrutiny and statistical analysis than I suspect any version of the LRB has.

They have had precisely NO statistical analysis. That's part of the problem.

Ok, that may have been a poor choice of phrase. Would 'statistical debate' fit better?
He has used CRP data to identify what he feels are problems and has proposed rules to fix. He is subsequently being asked to produce stats to prove his changes are effective. He has been clear that, due to the volume of data he has on CRP+ matches, it is impossible to prove.
What is it that is expected of him now?

I fully understand why he would have thought CRP+ was an appropriate name. Could people mistake them as being in some way official? Sure, people will always make mistakes. Did Plasmoid set out to fool people into thinking he had some official mandate to produce new BB rules? No, I don't think so. He's since gone out of his way to spell it out in way more detail than I think is required.

I understand it too, but the name is his responsibility regardless of intent. If people are confusing it then it is his responsibility to be clear.

I would agree. However, I would also suggest he has been more than clear. Insisting on anything additional is moving into the realms of "this pack of peanuts may contains nuts" labeling. More importantly, circular arguments over the name are disrupting more meaningful discussion of the rules themselves.
Some people don't agree with the name, fine, can we move on to more interesting debate now?

[dode74]

Hi Vanguard

He has been clear that, due to the volume of data he has on CRP+ matches, it is impossible to prove.

How can he possibly know this without any analysis at all? Do the analysis then say "need more data". It's not like the analysis takes particularly long with a computer.

I would also suggest he has been more than clear

Only after HUGE amounts of push from people who you seem to think are "disrupting" the thread...

[Vanguard]

Hi Vanguard

He has been clear that, due to the volume of data he has on CRP+ matches, it is impossible to prove.

How can he possibly know this without any analysis at all? Do the analysis then say "need more data". It's not like the analysis takes particularly long with a computer.

I would also suggest he has been more than clear

Only after HUGE amounts of push from people who you seem to think are "disrupting" the thread...

I'd have to go back through various threads to confirm, but I'm fairly sure there was general agreement that something in the order of tens of thousands of data points were required. Maybe I've picked that up wrongly.

Given that this thread is nominally about the NAF stance on Khorne...
I've never had an issue with the name nor felt it was in anyway confusing or mis-representing itself. However, he has made changes to his site and how he refers to the rules at the request of others. Unless you're pushing for additional changes (and that's the broader you rather than Dode specifically) it's a resolved issue.

For the sake of the original thread and clarity, it is probably worth moving this to a dedicated CRP+ Rules Discussion thread. There's a lot of cross-discussion in the BB2 thread which should be wrapped up in here too.