Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

[plasmoid]

Right.
I did Dodes opening change to "10 rules I think improves BB"
I did a few alterations to the "provenance" subpage.
On the stats page I changed everything from 'overperforms' (etc) to has overperformed, to make it clearer that I only talk about the data samples that we do have.

Sleep tight.

Oh - Harvestmouse and MattDakka,
I can see where you're coming from. Personally I have a very hard time with normal humans having ST4 or AG4. I know everything had that in 2nd ed. - but that was then. But it would make the team stronger for sure.

Cheers
Martin

[harvestmouse]

Yeah I can see that too, but I think it's a better fix than av8 and ma8. This seems even more inhuman to me. Also if we look at American Football as an example, we can see (bar the kicking team) that Receivers are built much slighter than any other position.

I don't despise AV 8, but it's messy and quite clearly a game play only fix for a team that isn't the weakest. So why them? Because humans should be popular and therefore competitive? Because it's an unused positional? Well there are plenty of others.

We've had AG 3 catchers for so long now, I'm happy enough to keep them, but then I'm not anti AG 4 either. What does worry me is all these positional fixes that are done for game play reasons and is 'muddying the water'. As I hinted at earlier, I really do not like the situation that surrounds runners at the moment........I mean WT* are they? We have a Dwarf and Dark Elf version that are quite clearly an auxiliary thrower and then a Norse one that is a Catcher replacement. Why on earth did they not keep the catcher and remove the thrower and make that a runner? Then it would be clearer. On top of this the 2 new ones have 'weird' skill descriptions. Dump off....fine if that is the runners niche (instead of sure hands) dauntless.....sigh again clearly game play reason without any thought of positional integrity.

So this is my worry with positionals and why not to make the catcher AV 8. Let's think of an all round fix if it's a must (and unless we move towards NTBB, which is something I don't want) then I don't really see the need in fixing them, but I then again I don't have a bone in the 'do human catchers need a bump' dog fight.

Now....if somebody came out with a team with Orc catchers with AV 8, that of course I'd have no problems with......however I'd expect them to be MA 7, to fit in line with the rest of the racial make up. Humans have the same speed and armour value as high elves. Which suggests that racially they share these stats; so to me I think they should stay the same.

[Shteve0]

Any change to human catchers that doesnt make them 0-2 7337, catch, sure feet, GA/SP for 80k is shying away from the obvious for me. The synergy between catchers with catch, sure feet and throwers with pass, sure hands is an open goal; 7 is already a fast human, and pro elf catchers shouldn't be stronger than human catchers. AV8 is a profoundly unsatisfying short pitch.

For my money, with my house rule hat on, the current human catcher would sit better on the zon roster, it doesn't need to be dumped completely.

I'm not convinced any changes are needed, and would be wary of such a process (as I am of the threat of cyanide delivering incremental alterations) but those would be my preference.

[dode74]

Apologies for the mishmash order of this post - I saw your second before I saw your first reply to me.

I did Dodes opening change to "10 rules I think improves BB"

• "each rule on the CRP+ has been discussed and approved for further unofficial testing by Tom Anders, Ian Williams and Stephen Babbage of the former BBRC."

Is that true? From what you've said it isn't with reference to SG in particular. Did Babbs involve himself with all changes as well? The use of unofficial implies there could be official testing which the former BBRC might be able to give approval for. Actually the use of "they approved" implies that they have some power to approve at all which, with all due respect to them, they do not. A more open version might say that you respect the opinions of these guys because of their previous work and that you discussed a set of house rules with them, based on stuff they thought would be good to test if the BBRC had continued, and they thought it might be a nice idea.

I do honestly think, that Tom, Ian and Babs think that these (CRP+) rules would improve BB

"Would improve" is not the same as "do improve". One is a future "if it is tried" and the other is a "we've tried it and it is better".

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.

It's what it did say due to the sentence structure. The implication within the sentence is there. By separating the two you've separated the "improved" and the "BBRC" bits, which is fine.

I did a few alterations to the "provenance" subpage.

Which ones?

On the stats page I changed everything from 'overperforms' (etc) to has overperformed, to make it clearer that I only talk about the data samples that we do have.

The entire page still strongly implies that these descriptive stats are justification for changes. Using descriptive stats isn't much better than guessing at all since you have no idea how wrong you are. That's the point of inferential stats. You do publish some inferential stats partway down the page (not checked the math myself), but it's a partial set of results (where are all the other races?) with a 95CI (1 in 20 error) over 24 races. If 1 in 20 results is likely to be wrong, and there are 24 races being measured... I'm sure you can see where this is going.
Furthermore, since the NAF published tournament data recently then you'd be best at least adding their data since it's match-level and the provenance is clearer since you have match-level data and tournament names/dates.

Finally, and I think I've mentioned this before, it needs to be very, very clear that you are not defining balance in the same way as the BBRC did. Clear as in bold, large and at the top of the page. Doing it in a paragraph later on is all well and good but it buries within the rest of the page the fact that you are fundamentally changing the way BB balance is calculated. It would probably be worth using the same data (a sum of the tournament and the MM data) to show how the balance would work out under the BBRC's definition (a very simple calculation) for comparison.

I figured you knew that we won't ever be anywhere near being able to say anything about reliable percentages. Ever.

Then on what basis are you continuing to make changes? You can't say what you have done has worked or not.

Logic dictates it.

Logic dictates a lot of things. Unfortunately the world often tells logic to STFU and does something else. That's why we bother with experiments and measuring rather than simply doing a Spock and saying "logically, Captain..."

The intent of this set of house rules is to diversify Blood Bowl by making more teams and tactics viable.

This is the only measure which matters. Define viability in terms of teams (which I think you have done) and tactics (no idea how you will do that) and then compare CRP with CRP+ to see if you have gained in "viability" for those two things. If you can't do that then you can't achieve the intent regardless of how well you sell it. Ever.

Human catchers - I like 0-2 7338 GA Catch for fluff, development and longevity reasons. That's just me though

[dode74]

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

It just means you need to work even harder to prevent such impressions from spreading. The more they spread the worse it looks for you when people call it.

Edit: we've gone way off topic on this Martin. Happy to go with PM from here if you want, or a different thread if people prefer.

[Wulfyn]

The new BB2 trailer had a catcher card with Av8 and no price increase in, so I think it's safe to say that this is definitely happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URMfC-scXF0
@ 1.04


Harvestmouse - I like the Ag idea for human catchers.

Ag4 on the catcher would probably turn him more into a runner, especially as that is the way of BB. But the thrower picking it up would still be better, and doing that and handing it off to a catcher would now be viable (and quite fluffy). The catcher still lacks some key skills (Block and Sure Hands) to toughen them up against dedicated ball winners, and at St2 they will always be vulnerable, so I don't think it is over-powered. They're still not as good as gutter runners, so maybe this is the boost that they need.

I mean why at the moment would you take Humans over Orcs? An Orc team has just as many blitzers, an equivalent big guy and thrower, and access to 4 ST4 players with AV9. Humans get a point of movement and catchers. For me the reason to go human is to give up a bit of bash for a bit of agility, but the bash drop is quite considerable relative to the gain. At AV8 a catcher is still the odd one out, and the boost has been in a bash direction.

Making Human Catchers 8-2-4-7 with Dodge and Catch for 90k I think would bring them to the top tier.


Catcher Types at the moment:
Hum: 8-2-3-7 (70k) Catch, Dodge
HEf: 8-3-4-7 (90k) Catch
PEf: 8-3-4-7 (100k) Catch, NoS
WEf: 8-2-4-7 (90k) Catch, Dodge, Sprint
GRu: 9-2-4-7 (80k) Dodge
Sln: 7-2-4-7 (80k) Diving Catch, Leap, Legs
Ghl: 7-3-3-7 (70k) Dodge
Amz: 6-3-3-7 (70k) Catch, Dodge
Nor: 7-3-3-7 (90k) Block, Dauntless

Every other catcher type has a combined ST+AG of 6 or 7. Humans are the only team to have a player I can think of with ST2 and AG3 other than stunties. Even the other way around (ST3 AG2, also adding to 5) is quite rare, I think skeletons, zombies, and most dwarves?

[koadah]

Right.
I did Dodes opening change to "10 rules I think improves BB"
I did a few alterations to the "provenance" subpage.
On the stats page I changed everything from 'overperforms' (etc) to has overperformed, to make it clearer that I only talk about the data samples that we do have.

Nice work.

You should know that this game will attract people who may bit a little more nerdy, pedantic and overly literal than the general population.

I think that perhaps the use of "approved" implies that the former BBRC members have some kind of authority that they no longer have. They are no longer the BBRC.

I don't think that many BB coaches will actually visit your page and read what you have written. Mostly they will take and argue over the rules that their commish gives them.
People are going to hear that "Plasmoid and the BBRC are working on new rules". That is going to be enough for a lot of people to assume that they are in some way "official". Some people will consider the rules "effectively official" even if they do know that the rules are not "really official".

Even some people who know that they should be saying "some former members of the BBRC" will at times say "the BBRC" if only because it is shorter, quicker and more catchy. Just count those syllables.

The name CRP+ will imply to some people that the rules are better than CRP or the next version. I'm fine with that. It's nice and catchy.


The Rules
I always use a subset off these rules.

1 & 2: Those look pretty good to me. They are not enough to prevent monster killer teams especially in a MM/Box type environment. The teams are not quite as evil killers though so I think that for most people that will be a benefit. More teams are likely to be "viable" at higher TV. Expect more orcs and dwarves. We have some Khemri doing well.
This may be bad news for elves in Box/MM with more tackle-POMBers on the prowl.
Depending on how you want your league run you may want some kind of aging. I wouldn't want it to kick in until atleast the 4th or mayby 5th skill.

3 & 4: Gotta love em.

5: I like it but it is probably too strong for a lot of people. We had goblin Heavyweight Champions.
This + NTBB buffs will make flings quite strong.

6: The Bank may be good for normal leagues but I would consider it a disaster for Box/MM

7. I pretty much consider SE to be optional. Use/alter at commish's discretion.

8. You won't need this is you use the bank and depending on how you use the SE.

9. Haven't tried this one. Hmm. Maybe.

10. Hell yeah!

NTBB

I have not tried these. I think that even if your nerfs are a good thing for younger teams they will hamper those teams as the get older.

[plasmoid]

Hi Koadah,
thanks for the encouraging post.

I think that perhaps the use of "approved" implies that the former BBRC members have some kind of authority that they no longer have. They are no longer the BBRC.

Dode made the same point. I'll change it. Now all I need is a better verb. Or a re-write.

I don't think that many BB coaches will actually visit your page and read what you have written. Mostly they will take and argue over the rules that their commish gives them.

Well, if nobody visits the site then a rewrite isn't really gonna make much difference . I'd hope at least the commish in your example would have visited the site in order to get the rules in the first place.

As for the CRP+ rules, I'm glad you like most of them.

6: The Bank may be good for normal leagues but I would consider it a disaster for Box/MM

In the current Box, certainly.
But I think that with the double nerf to CPOMB - CPOMB being the defining feature of Box - I think there will be a lot less need for stockpiling Cash to save your bacon.

7. I pretty much consider SE to be optional. Use/alter at commish's discretion.

True. This was meant as a change to the recommended SEs. And it's such a minor change that it might not have been worth it.

8. You won't need this is you use the bank and depending on how you use the SE.

Perhaps. Is there any other reason to do a mid-game concession than because you're having your team completely torn apart? CPOMB-teams do that, and I don't think it is a good idea to reward those with more Cash.
But admittedly, with the nerf to CPOMB, this might not have been worth it either. (Except in pbem, where games take 3 weeks, and in-game concessions do happen for a number of reasons ).

9. Haven't tried this one. Hmm. Maybe.

It certainly Means that wizards have become a less popular choice. And it was meant as a small counter measure to Elfs getting killed less. I have heard countless reports (from FUMBBL) that finesse coaches love to play Down 15(0)TV, so they can abuse the wizard.
Again, this rule might not be worth it.

Basically, I think all those 3 are good rules.
But they don't do a lot.
And they were not on Galaks original list, so I might (have) be(en) better off just canning them.

Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Oh, Koadah:

1 & 2: Those look pretty good to me. They are not enough to prevent monster killer teams especially in a MM/Box type environment. The teams are not quite as evil killers though so I think that for most people that will be a benefit. More teams are likely to be "viable" at higher TV. Expect more orcs and dwarves. We have some Khemri doing well.
This may be bad news for elves in Box/MM with more tackle-POMBers on the prowl.
Depending on how you want your league run you may want some kind of aging. I wouldn't want it to kick in until atleast the 4th or mayby 5th skill.

I did in fact expect a bump in orcs and dwarfs. Previous editions of NTBB actually had minor nerfs to Dwarfs and Orcs as a protective measure.
But with the demand for stats based changes only (or my head on a spike), I couldn't defend these forward thinking changes and had to remove them.
I do think that more dwarfs and orcs well be a good way to curb elfs in long term play.
I also think that a shift away from the neccessity to pick protective skills (to survive the CPOMB meta) will allow more coaches to pick elf-hunting skills, which I think will be good.

Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi Guys,
this probably isn't the place for an extensive discussion about the human catcher. So I'll be brief.
I think that a lot of different tweaks to the human catcher could be both interesting and viable.

Back in 2009(?) I made a poll between AV8 catchers and ST3 and it came up even.
I understand the limitations of such a small poll. Let's not go there. I took the poll as a guideline.

In the end I went with AV8 - and still would over the other suggestions in this thread - because AV8 is the tweak that changes the human team's playing style the least. It doesn't change the catchers role. He is basically the same.
What the change does is make him less of a target. And that actually matters.
As for the fluff, I think it Works fine. As stated before, it seems that humans are 6337+skill. Norse have Block, Amazons have Dodge and Humans have AV+.
Yes, I get that "Recievers" are scrawnier than other players on an NFL team. I think that is refelected just fine by ST2.

But my main point is, that this is the change that messes the least with the team's playing style.
To me that is a big advantage over making them elves, or giving the team 2 or 4 more mobile blitzer types.

Cheers
Martin

[plasmoid]

Hi Dode,
yep - we're moving seriously off topic. If you want to start a new thread, then I'll be happy to follow you there.
I'll give your changes a look. But I will say that I am a bit wary of the process. If a do extensive changes due to the input of random internet guy (no offense meant), then I could well end up doing it over and over and over whenever the next random internet guy has an opinion.

Is that true? From what you've said it isn't with reference to SG in particular. Did Babbs involve himself with all changes as well?

I'll do some sort of a rewrite to not say "approved", given the connotations.
But that "unofficial" could somehow become an indication of "officiality" - well, that's an example of what I am wary about with such a rewrite.
I put unofficial there at the behest om someone else, in order to clearer indicate that this was not official testing. See what I mean?
Ah well. As stated, I'll rewrite it and let you know.

As for your questions, I remain adamant that agreeing with a complete skill rewrite, and then saying that you're not bothered by a small change to that, Means that you still in favour of the overall result.
Babbs was not active in the discussion, but he did "approve" the result - post SG-change - saying (paraphrazing here) that he was happy with the rules, and that they targetted the areas that he would have chosen too. He could have changed stuff, but chose not to.

"Would improve" is not the same as "do improve". One is a future "if it is tried" and the other is a "we've tried it and it is better".

Agreed. But I have lost track of what you think I should do here.

It's what it did say due to the sentence structure.

I disagree strongly, but as you're happy with the rewrite I think it would be a Waste of time to discuss it.

Which ones?

Hoenestly don't remember. It was 3 in the morning.

Finally, and I think I've mentioned this before, it needs to be very, very clear that you are not defining balance in the same way as the BBRC did.

I'd be happy to do that. But I won't be doing the extra math.

The entire page still strongly implies that these descriptive stats are justification for changes.

AFAIK I do in 2 Places state quite thoroughly that it is not Scientific justification.
Hmm.. Suppose I could move one of them to the top of the page.

You do publish some inferential stats partway down the page

I don't understand this. I've done all of the stats in exactly the same way. CI 95 based on the sample/data-set I have.
That's all descriptive as far as I know.
As for the problem with CI95 and 24 teams - I get that. But Mike told me that CI95 was the Scientific standard and there was no reason to do a higher CI.

Then on what basis are you continuing to make changes? You can't say what you have done has worked or not.

I'm not though
But if I did, then I'd be forced to rely on feedback.
I certainly won't be foolish enough to make any based on the stats that I could produce,
I know that it isn't science. But it is what took us from LRB1 to LRB6 (through PBBL 1 through 12), and I'm happy with that.
Especially when the alternative is waiting 120 years.

Logic dictates a lot of things. Unfortunately the world often tells logic to STFU and does something else. That's why we bother with experiments and measuring rather than simply doing a Spock and saying "logically, Captain..."

And I get that. Up to a point.
I also agree that the nerfs are of a type that could surprise. I.e. Grab on Mummies could be better than Mighty Blow. In 120 years we'll know. Until then, I'll have to trust my experience + the feedback. I don't pretend that I'm doing anything else.
But when it comes to the buffs, there is no denying the logic. Or at least you'll have to give me an example. All of the buffs are adding something on top for free. So if we compare "something" to "the same something plus something free", then there is no way that option 2 can be worse. It could technically be the same, but not worse.

If you can't do that then you can't achieve the intent regardless of how well you sell it. Ever.

I could achieve it. I just couldn't prove it.
And nothing I can do will change the fact that I'll never produce quantities of data to prove it. So I won't bother to pretend.

Cheers
Martin

[harvestmouse]

As for the fluff, I think it Works fine.

I'm not looking for a fight, but for fluff reasons it works terrible. There is a distinct trade off for speed over MA, not ST.

This is the distinct difference between the 2 most numerous and the first 2 races of BB; Orcs and Humans. It's a trade off of MA vs AV. Exactly the same for WE vs HE/DE. A trade off.

I loved....adore in fact the job the last BBRC did on the 3 new races. I really think they couldn't have done a better job, and any problems with those 3 teams isn't a team problem, but problems else where.

But some of the later changes to the other rosters.......well there are some real description issues and I'd like to move away from those changes and back to familiar ground. This issue, me and you (plas) will never agree. I disagree with your roster design beliefs right at the core, and we'll never see eye to eye on that.

On this issue though, I think it's really clear and obvious (regarding the trade off). Humans are competitive due to their star players (not as much in the latest versions, but before definitely). This fits kind of with the original premise. The Reavers had the best range of stars as well.

I don't despise the change, just that it's messing with a core design rule for me and that's dangerous.

[dode74]

If a do extensive changes due to the input of random internet guy (no offense meant)

None taken. You either see the problem or you don't, and I think you're honest enough to look at it although perhaps so close to the problem as to not be able to see it.

I put unofficial there at the behest om someone else, in order to clearer indicate that this was not official testing. See what I mean?

Then clarify your intent. Is it testing? If so then what for? How are you testing? What are your criteria? If it's not testing then it's a set of evolving house rules which are changing based on feedback, and the only thing the ex-BBRC did was point you in the right direction and say "yeah, they won't break the game". As an example, I spoke to Galak about a transfer market before. His answer, with a couple of (sensible) caveats was that a transfer market shouldn't unbalance the game. Does that mean that transfer markets are approved by a former BBRC member? I don't think so, but I do think that it means that someone with experience of design in this game thinks transfer markets are a reasonable house rule.

I don't understand this. I've done all of the stats in exactly the same way. CI 95 based on the sample/data-set I have.
That's all descriptive as far as I know.

http://dsearls.org/courses/M120Concepts ... t_mean.htm

I'm not though

You have made changes. We know this because the list is not the same as Galak's list upon which it is based.

I know that it isn't science. But it is what took us from LRB1 to LRB6 (through PBBL 1 through 12), and I'm happy with that.
Especially when the alternative is waiting 120 years.

Is that the alternative? Seems to me Koadah might have a fair volume of data for you.
Besides, you've made a rod for your own back with respect to the volume of data required. By splitting things down into TV bandings you've massively increased the amount of data required.

But when it comes to the buffs, there is no denying the logic. Or at least you'll have to give me an example. All of the buffs are adding something on top for free. So if we compare "something" to "the same something plus something free", then there is no way that option 2 can be worse. It could technically be the same, but not worse.

You're assuming they are actually buffs, for starters. One example could be the Chaos mino: it could well be that taking a mino, even with leader, is worse than not taking a mino. I say "could be" because we don't know: there are no results which suggest one way or another (hence the need for experiments). You'll doubtless be thinking that if the mino is worse then don't take the mino and it's no nerf to Chaos overall: it's the same. Thing is, that depends on people not taking the mino. If they choose to do so thinking it will be better and Chaos results are worse because of it then your change has been a nerf to Chaos. The HE buff could turn out to be a long term nerf as the player has to take less TV-efficient skills later on. My point is this: we don't know. You say with confidence "logic dictates X" but, as you accept, the world does other things really rather often.

I could achieve it. I just couldn't prove it.

If you can't prove it then how do you know you've achieved it?

nothing I can do will change the fact that I'll never produce quantities of data to prove it. So I won't bother to pretend.

And yet you pretend to be using data to justify the changes in the first place! Your logic seems to be going:
1. I interpret that the data says something is wrong
2. We'll change X in order to make it right
3. I like X so we'll keep it
It's not coherent. The third statement, for consistency, should read "the data is now right so we'll keep X" or "the data is still wrong so we'll try Y" otherwise you are measuring by two different standards. Hell, you could even make the first statement read "I don't like X" and the logic would be consistent, but you seem to want to invoke an interpretation of data.

[Wulfyn]

But my main point is, that this is the change that messes the least with the team's playing style.

But what if this is the problem? As I showed above the catchers in their current style do not do enough to differentiate the human team from being weak orcs. As harvestmouse said the MA/AV trade is a common one, and you see that Orcs get a bit more armour and humans get a bit more speed. But Orcs also get a bit more strength, and there is nothing to balance that for humans.

There is also a precedent in Skaven and Slaan in dropping the ST to 2 to get AG4 on 4 positional players. Neither of those teams are unbalanced, and neither feel like elves. It would make humans very similar in structure to Skaven, losing a movement point in the agile players for 2 additional blitzers, and a movement point from the linemen for more armour (as per many teams).

Maybe humans should be allowed to play the ball a bit more?

[Digger Goreman]

There is also a precedent in Skaven and Slaan.... Neither of those teams are unbalanced, and neither feel like elves.

BULLSPIT! Slann are not nothing but "green elves and spam", while four furry elves on the field are four furry elves on the field.... Elves in degrees....

No one is a paragon of virtue... not me, Plasmoid, the Khorne-Bretts, sNAFu, you, the past mortem BBRC (which people hold up as shining examples just like partisans in my country fictionalize "the founding fathers"), even Galak (whom I believe most capable and tries to be fair minded) has a point of reference.... On the rare occasions I used the phrase, "best for the game", he would become flustered; a triad on the BBRC kept elves sacrosanct; Jervis Johnson toppled the apple cart because he thought his madcap attitude ruled; Plas continues to tinker (his spurious "statistics" (to which I unwittingly contributed) were used to ream the Necro team); people even invoke TT, Cyanide, GW, FUMMBL, NAF, and Nuffle depending on what they selfishly want, not realizing that "I know best!" is in everyone else's mind (even those who think all of this is a non issue) and certainly in GW's as they have divorced themselves from all but the money making aspect of a failed I.P. (stock holders definitely "know best")....

It's all just house rules at this point....