Talk Fantasy Football

Vanguard wrote:Good news guys. From Warhammer Fest today (courtesy of Recalcitrant Daze) comes this update:

Official confirmation that the current ruleset, complete with ClawPOMB, is not broken.

Well if you let your corporate master till you what to think...

Are you Digger in disguise?

Darkson wrote:Are you Digger in disguise?

No, I'm Digger in disguise!

Bakunin wrote:Well if you let your corporate master till you what to think...

Sorry, was the smiley not enough of a clue?

Vanguard wrote:

Bakunin wrote:Well if you let your corporate master till you what to think...

Sorry, was the smiley not enough of a clue?

Sorry, I missed that. I take the insult back

Can we avoid insults altogether please

Score points through discussion but keep it clean

Bakunin wrote:Sorry, I missed that. I take the insult back

No worries.

dode74 wrote:

straume wrote:Objective fact: The killstack gives a 58% chance of depitching.

Only if the block is successful in the first place.
But...

GalakStarscraper wrote:...Claw/MB/POn as that was designed with full knowledge of what it was supposed to do and what % were desired for player removal options since so many off the pitch player attrition factors were removed from the game at the same time.

It is a toss up between which I find the most perplexing. That you believe that designers are perfect, that you think that ANOVA is the right metric to do your stats testing (pro tip: it really is not), or that you think that Appeals to Authority can ever be valid (they are always fallacious).

Sorry dode but almost everything you have said in this thread is completely wrong, but you think that by being the most vocal that it means you are right.

Wulfyn wrote:It is a toss up between which I find the most perplexing. That you believe that designers are perfect, that you think that ANOVA is the right metric to do your stats testing (pro tip: it really is not), or that you think that Appeals to Authority can ever be valid (they are always fallacious).

1. He has not said the designers were perfect, he just believes that if the outcome matches the creators design criteria, then it is working as intended. I. e. not broken.
2. When you provide an alternative statistical method for analyzing the data, then I will decide which I think is right. So far your statistical acumen looks like "that's not right because I say so."
3. Appeals to Authority are not always fallacious. Please study or review your logic 101. Appeals to authority, when the subject is an expert (and the statement is not contended by other qualified experts), are valid reasons to believe something.

CyberedElf wrote:

Wulfyn wrote:It is a toss up between which I find the most perplexing. That you believe that designers are perfect, that you think that ANOVA is the right metric to do your stats testing (pro tip: it really is not), or that you think that Appeals to Authority can ever be valid (they are always fallacious).

1. He has not said the designers were perfect, he just believes that if the outcome matches the creators design criteria, then it is working as intended. I. e. not broken.
2. When you provide an alternative statistical method for analyzing the data, then I will decide which I think is right. So far your statistical acumen looks like "that's not right because I say so."
3. Appeals to Authority are not always fallacious. Please study or review your logic 101. Appeals to authority, when the subject is an expert (and the statement is not contended by other qualified experts), are valid reasons to believe something.

1. He has. He is saying that if what is designed is what the designers intended then by definition it cannot be broken. This is his only defence on how CDs have improved. For that to be true the designers must be perfect, else a mistake they make will still result in a ruleset that could be broken.

2. It's not me that says so, it is the ANOVA software itself. Either dode does not need it explaining in which case he knows he is doing it wrong, or he does need it explaining, in which case he should not be using that software. If you knew how ANOVA worked and you saw what he was doing with it then you'd see he was doing it wrong too. All of which adds up to people who don't know enough statistics pretending that they do to win internet arguments.

3. Appeals to Authority are always fallacious because experts are not infallible, even on topics they are experts in. Any professional critical thinking or logic course will teach you this early. Ever seen two experts disagree about something they are both experts at? I guess you think they can both be right? Arguments have to stand on their own merit regardless of who says them.

Wulfyn wrote:He is saying that if what is designed is what the designers intended then by definition it cannot be broken. This is his only defence on how CDs have improved. For that to be true the designers must be perfect, else a mistake they make will still result in a ruleset that could be broken.

Seriously, this is utter nonsense.

If I take a piece of wood and some tools with the intention of making a six sided die and I succeed in doing so, I just created something that I wanted to create.
That doesn't make me the perfect person, just someone with an intention and the skill to realize it. It has six sides, it rolls numbers, it's not broken!

Really, this is really getting awkward now, you're struggling so hard to insist in CPOMB being broken that you grab for every straw that seems to be in reach. Ridiculous!
Can't you just accept that the MAJORITY of people don't agree with you or just don't care?
Go and house rule CPOMB how ever you like but please, let us others enjoy the game as it was designed and as we like it.

I would never play against anyone insisting on house ruling CPOMB, you can can absolutely refuse to play against anyone who insists of playing the original rules.

And what if your six sided die has a dense spot inside that means it is more likely to roll a 1? What you are saying is "if I succeed then I succeed". Sure. But just because your intention is to make something with certain criteria does not mean that you will succeed in every aspect. Designing a game is more complicated than basing the entire success of that design on one aspect of it. Tossing a coin is a tier 1 team. Why do you think that such a team would not be broken?

It is not getting awkward for me. What I see here is a very vocal and vitriolic minority using bad statistics and analogies to embed their preheld bias that there is nothing wrong with the mechanic. Even if there was a majority that does not mean that they are right. Fortunately for us all truth is not a democratic process.

what if your six sided die has a dense spot inside that means it is more likely to roll a 1?

If one of his design criteria is that it should roll each side evenly (within acceptable tolerances) then he's not succeeded. If that was not one of his design criteria then he has. I'd suggest that since he said he was making a die, not a cube or something which merely resembled a die, and the assumption within that definition is that it will have an even distribution, then he will likely not have succeeded. That's for him to define, though. Seems to work for Chessex...

Appeals to Authority are always fallacious because experts are not infallible, even on topics they are experts in.

You're equivocating. This is not about expertise (being the ability to assess or do something to a degree which requires a particular skill honed to a high level), it's about definition of who has power to define what something is: a different type of authority. That you don't like the definition they came up with is neither here nor there: they had the power to choose it and they did. You might opine that games are more complex than that, or that there are other methods we could use, and that's fine as opinion. But your (or my) opinion carries no water as far as the game design of BB was: all of that power was vested in the BBRC by the owners of the IP, and they (GW) had and have the power to do so.

Wulfyn, if you see a minority here... Go have your eyes checked!

And even one of the designers themselves telling you they had the numbers and they designed on purpose what CPOMB is doesn't make you feel awkward?
Okay... But still... House rules... Get it?

Can we change the name of the thread?