Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

[Digger Goreman]

So, when does this drone officially become filibustered?

[rolo]

Wait, we were supposed to be voting?

"Motion for Cloture!!"

[dode74]

"Didn't care" is not the same as "a list that we could all agree on".

That's not even my main point, which is the confusion calling it CRP+, combined with reference to the BBRC, causes. As Mike said, QED reference the post from stashman.

[koadah]

Yes, it is terrible. Every now and then someone thinks that the BBRC still exists. GW are still interested in the game and the arrival of LRB7 is imminent along with a shiny new boxed set.

And it's all Plasmoid's fault.

[plasmoid]

Hi Dode, I'm glad that it isn't your main point, as it seems an awful lot like deliberate misunderstanding. What you managed to get out of it was strangely nothing like what I wrote, namely "we had already reached an agreement, I'm not bothered that you're making a tiny changed based on feedback from playtesters".

Be that as it may.
I'm sorry that the CRP+ name implies officiality to you.
I picked it 4(?) years ago because it meant(?) CRP improved. I had no idea it would rub anyone the wrong way.
At least I didn't call it LRB7 or CRP2.

As for stashmans post, I'm not sure what the problem is.
Stashman knows that they're not official rules. He knows the BBRC are 'former'.
And he even writes that 'plasmoid made them with the former BBRC' rather than the other way around. And he knows that I'm not BBRC.
Is the problem that he didn't write 'members of'?

I still think the site spells everything out with exacgerated clarity, and I wonder if people really can not be trusted to read for themselves.
Cheers

[dode74]

I'm glad that it isn't your main point, as it seems an awful lot like deliberate misunderstanding. What you managed to get out of it was strangely nothing like what I wrote,

What you wrote here was "didn't care". What you wrote here was "a list that we could all agree on". No "misunderstanding", deliberate or otherwise, simply quoting exactly what you wrote here and on your website.

because it meant(?) CRP improved.

Therein lies the problem. Improved is subjective when it comes to house rules, which is what these are. The use of descriptive (and therefore meaningless) statistics attempts to add a sheen of objectivity to that.

As for stashmans post, I'm not sure what the problem is.

Here's what he wrote:

• Plasmoid did a great job with the crp+ with the former bbrc.

The clear implication is that CRP+ rules are in some way validated by the BBRC rather than simply another set of house rules.
I'm not criticising the work you have done on them, but your hard sell of them. Even koadah called it "slick marketing". I'm saying you're very, very slippery with the presentation of these house rules, and the naming of them is one of the slipperiest parts.

Out of curiosity, given the playtesting you've done, do your house rules achieve the aim? Are "more teams and tactics viable"? And what does "viable" mean?

[plasmoid]

Hi Dode,

simply quoting exactly what you wrote here and on your website.

then you're quoting while missing what is said.
Yes, the 2012 list was agreed on.
You complained that anything after that wouldn't be agreed on.
I explained that I made a small change to one of the things agreed on, asked if the change was OK, and got the reply that they didn't care that I changed it.
You somehow take that to mean that they no longer agree with the rule.
I'm quite surprised.

Improved is subjective when it comes to house rules

So the problem with the name isn't really that it in any tangible way implies officiality.
But that it contains a value judgement.
I can't see how this is dastardly sinister or 'slick'.
If a say "good cake", I expect people to know that they might not like it anyway.
I don't get while people need you to protect them from that.

As for the sinister "sheen of meaningless statistics", I explain very up front on the site that they are not Scientific proof of anything.
...BTW I doubt that I say anywhere that the statistics is what puts the + in CRP+ - which you imply.
I believe I state exactly what I use them for.

The clear implication is that CRP+ rules are in some way validated by the BBRC rather than simply another set of house rules.

Clear implication in some objective way?
He said that I made the rules with the BBRC. Which may lack nuances but is factually correct.
I've been jumping through a lot of hoops to satisfy 3 people. Fair enough. But my list started with Galaks list and was modified with active and prolonged input from BBRC members. Am I somehow not allowed to say that? It's the truth.
How is that slippery? If you think this somehow implies to the innocent reader that these rules are actually official, then I'd expect that concern to be dispelled by the truckload of times that the site explicitly says that these rules are not official.

If the involvement of former BBRC members in formulating my CRP+ list somehow has importance to some people, then that's because like me, they value the thoughts and ideas of the former BBRC. Not because they're confused that the rules are official.
Great. The influence of BBRC members on my CRP+ list was massive.

Out of curiosity, given the playtesting you've done, do your house rules achieve the aim? Are "more teams and tactics viable"? And what does "viable" mean?

Viable ties in with win percentages.
I'm sure you can tell the difference between the intent of the rules and a claim that that goal has been reached.
As for the result of the playtesting, I'll let you know when we've reached 400.000 games.
If that is a problem, then maybe you can tell me where I claim that I have proof? I can certainly show you where I explicitly say that I don't.

Cheers
Martin

[dode74]

then you're quoting while missing what is said.

Maybe you need to be more explicit, then.

You somehow take that to mean that they no longer agree with the rule.

Now who's misreading? I'm saying that "a list that was agreed on" and "a list where we don't care what you changed" are not the same thing.

So the problem with the name isn't really that it in any tangible way implies officiality.
But that it contains a value judgement.

It's both. Here's what your site says:

• the CRP+: 10 house rules to improve CRP Blood Bowl, approved for further unofficial testing by Tom Anders, Ian Williams and Stephen Babbage of the former BBRC.

The value judgement appears to have the officialism of being approved by the BBRC. They are not the ones, I believe, who said it would improve CRP. You are. Here's a more accurate version:

• the CRP+: 10 house rules which I think improve CRP Blood Bowl. These rules are based on a list which was approved for further unofficial testing for a potential future LRB by Tom Anders, Ian Williams and Stephen Babbage of the former BBRC. Changes between that list and the current CRP+ list can be found here.

See the difference? Only one of those is explicitly saying what happened, and calling it CRP+ while "invoking" (for want of a better word) the BBRC does add that sheen of officialism.

I explain very up front on the site that they are not Scientific proof of anything.

Really? Because this page tries very hard to justify the changes based on statistics.

I doubt that I say anywhere that the statistics is what puts the + in CRP+ - which you imply.

You don't say that and I don't imply it. You might infer that, but that's your interpretation rather than my meaning.

I'm sure you can tell the difference between the intent of the rules and a claim that that goal has been reached.

How very defensive of you. I didn't say you claimed anything, I was simply asking, out of interest, if the playtesting suggests your house rules do what they are supposed to do. It's a genuine question. After all, what's the point of playtesting unless you are using the results for the basis of any further changes?
How do win percentages show more tactics are viable?

[Darkson]

Not because they're confused that the rules are official.

Actually, plenty of people think they are, because you invoke the BBRC on the site. I've seen people on the Cyanide forum, Facebook and elsewhere all link to your site, often with the words "here's what the BBRC are doing now" (or the like).
I just don't bother to argue with you about it.

[MattDakka]

I think Plasmoid's intentions are genuine and honest, we can argue about his methods and data but at least he's trying to improve the game.
Don't know whether Cyanide drew inspiration from some of his house rules but AV 8 Human Catchers and 130K Ogre are small steps in the right direction in my opinion.

[harvestmouse]

I don't want a spot in the above argument.

However I think there'd be a chance here to clean up a few things. Maybe the way to go (and could sort out the zon problem a bit) would be to make all catcher positionals AG4. They wear less armour, so speed and agility would benefit. Slann have gone down this route (different agility for catchers) and I feel this was based off of 2nd ed (where catchers on all rosters were more agile). Keeping a player with the same speed, but given them more armour isn't the way to go in my opinion. You're moving away from the original intention, just because they play slightly poorly.

[MattDakka]

I don't want a spot in the above argument.

However I think there'd be a chance here to clean up a few things. Maybe the way to go (and could sort out the zon problem a bit) would be to make all catcher positionals AG4. They wear less armour, so speed and agility would benefit. Slann have gone down this route (different agility for catchers) and I feel this was based off of 2nd ed (where catchers on all rosters were more agile). Keeping a player with the same speed, but given them more armour isn't the way to go in my opinion. You're moving away from the original intention, just because they play slightly poorly.

Probably the reason Human Catchers are AG 3 is they might be too good with AG 4, maybe they could be quite balanced with AG 4 and Catch only.

[plasmoid]

Hi DS,

Actually, plenty of people think they are, because you invoke the BBRC on the site. I've seen people on the Cyanide forum, Facebook and elsewhere all link to your site, often with the words "here's what the BBRC are doing now" (or the like).
I just don't bother to argue with you about it.

Funny how that happens. These things tend to get a life of their own.
If 'plenty of people' think so, then I doubt it has to do with me" invoking the BBRC on the site" - because that simply isn't what the site says.

Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi Dode,

I'm saying that "a list that was agreed on" and "a list where we don't care what you changed" are not the same thing.

Maybe you need to be more explicit, then.

I'll explain it again then.
With NTBB2012 we had a CRP+ list that we agreed on: A list of changes to CRP and changes to Galaks list.
On the final post of page 21 I listed the changes to CRP+ since 2012.
5 changes in total.
1 of those things was stepping back to straight CRP. So not a new item on the list.
2 of those were things already discussed and supported as part of Galaks list.
1 was a rewording, so not a new item on the list.
And finally, 1 (Sneaky Git) was a small tweak to a rule that we had all agreed on - after discussing several alternatives.

Now, concerning that one thing, which admittedly was a rules change - a small on, but still - I wrote here, same post at the bottom of page 21 - that I had "asked, and they didn't care".
And you replied (top of page 22) - "Didn't care" is not the same as "a list that we could all agree on".

I don't understand how you got "didn't care" to be about the list.
But I can see how I could have been clearer concerning Sneaky Git - which is what you referenced with your "didn't care" comment.
What I meant was "I asked about the particular minor tweak to the SG rule that we agreed on, and I got the reply that they were fine with either version - i.e. they didn't care if I tweaked it or not". The SG we had agreed on was essentially the same as before.

If you take that to mean that they no longer agreed with the SG appearing in CRP+ (2013), then I'm amazed.

Now for your wonderfully constructive suggestion for a rewrite. No, I'm not being sarcastic. It's constructive.
First: English is not my first language, but as far as I can tell there is no gramatically sound way that the "approved by the BBRC" can be applied to "improve CRP Blood Bowl". That simply isn't what that sentence says.
Also, again, my English may be at fault, but to my understanding, there is a difference to saying "10 rules to improve BB" and "10 rules that improve BB"
Finally, I do honestly think, that Tom, Ian and Babs think that these (CRP+) rules would improve BB - "if they tested out like we hoped they would" as Galak wrote on page 20 about his own list. As stated before, Tom, Ian and I discussed Galaks list at length, discussing each point on his list, comparing several of them to other alternatives. All the way through the process Ian and Tom had full right to veto, but we eventually arrived at changes to some of the points on Galaks list (others stayed the same), that both Ian and Tom were happy with (even compared to the previous iterations - the ones on Galaks list - which they could perfectly well have stuck to). When Ian and Tom were both happy with each item on the CRP+ list, the explicitly allowed me to put their name up on the site.
Going with "my" wordings (which in several cases were in fact not mine) over the wordings on Galaks list, I find it safe to say that they at least figured those iterations to be on par with the ones on Galaks list. And hence likely to improve BB if they tested out like we hoped they would.

So, I don't think that there is any good reason to change the wording to "which I think would improve CRP Blood Bowl".
But I will.
The other thing I won't do. Because (as described above) it was not just Galaks list, but also "my" CRP+ list which was discussed at length and approved for further playtest.

Really? Because this page tries very hard to justify the changes based on statistics.

Pardon me, bit this feels a bit rich.
Mainly you, Mike and Shteve0 have asked me repeatedly to use the data available in NTBB.
And that has caused quite a few changes to the NTBB rosters.
I used the data available to do descriptive statistics. As far as I understand it there is nowhere near enough to do inferential statistics.

All that said, the page which you reference states:
"As you will see below, there are teams that we can confidently say overperform or underperform in the available data pools. This is what NTBB uses as basis for changes. However, we do not have enough data to confidently say that our current data samples would line up with a (yet) imagined future total population of games. Thats the difference between descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. I'm told that drawing reliable inferences from the data samples would require roughly 20.000 games for each team in each TV-bracket - data I doubt will ever be available. In other words, the prudent thing to do would be to do nothing, since we do not have absolute proof - to go with what scientists call the null hypothesis. And that is your prerogative. But if you feel, like me, that the anomalies uncovered matches your personal playing experience, then you're welcome to adopt these house rules in the hope that they even the playing field.
It's your call."

As far as I can tell, descriptive statistics beats guessing.
That said, I'll sharpen the verbs so it becomes even clearer throughout, that I'm working with samples.

You don't say that and I don't imply it. You might infer that, but that's your interpretation rather than my meaning.

Well, when we talked about CRP+ meaning "CRP improved" you did say:

Improved is subjective when it comes to house rules, which is what these are. The use of descriptive (and therefore meaningless) statistics attempts to add a sheen of objectivity to that.

implying that I do use statistics as an argument that they're "improved".
But never mind then.

How very defensive of you. I didn't say you claimed anything, I was simply asking, out of interest, if the playtesting suggests your house rules do what they are supposed to do. It's a genuine question. After all, what's the point of playtesting unless you are using the results for the basis of any further changes?
How do win percentages show more tactics are viable?

Well, if it was a genuine question then I apologize for snapping.
Given your understanding of inferential statistics and the speed at which a few tabletop Leagues can play games, I figured you knew that we won't ever be anywhere near being able to say anything about reliable percentages. Ever.

So what can I say? And what do you mean when you ask about my house rules? CRP+? NT Rosters?
That the rosters who have lost something with no compensation are now weaker. Logic dictates it.
That the rosters who have been given something for free are now stronger? Logic dictates that too.
That CPOMB has been weakened? The math shows it.
That fouling is stronger? The math shows it. And that SG is now a viable skill - depends on how good you think it was before, but at least I've seen it get picked.
That teams stockpile less Cash? That I can see.
That Tier 3 teams get trashed slightly less? Again, it seems a fairly straightforward conclusion.

I'd also point out that non-tier 1 teams are a lot more popular, but I'm not sure it is worth mentioning, because it can be brushed off with "that's obviously the kind of coaches that NTBB appeals to anyway".

Cheers
Martin

PS - sorry for the half-way edit. My computer semi-crashed in mid-post.

[harvestmouse]

I don't want a spot in the above argument.

However I think there'd be a chance here to clean up a few things. Maybe the way to go (and could sort out the zon problem a bit) would be to make all catcher positionals AG4. They wear less armour, so speed and agility would benefit. Slann have gone down this route (different agility for catchers) and I feel this was based off of 2nd ed (where catchers on all rosters were more agile). Keeping a player with the same speed, but given them more armour isn't the way to go in my opinion. You're moving away from the original intention, just because they play slightly poorly.

Probably the reason Human Catchers are AG 3 is they might be too good with AG 4, maybe they could be quite balanced with AG 4 and Catch only.

Yeah, I was thinking the same, with the same fix. I'd like to see both in action, as it's not clear either way. But dropping dodge is fine as there are a lot of catchers that don't come with dodge now. I'd also like to see the 'runner' position tidied up. LRB5 onwards really greyed the water with these guys.