Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

[plasmoid]

PS - I don't claim to have JJ's remit.

I just discussed these rules with a few guys that used to be on the BBRC. Their opinion matters a lot to me. Maybe to someone else too. But certainly not to everyone - and less and less, I suppose, as time passes. A lot of the rules I didn't even come up with. I "support" them because I think they make sense, and because primarily Tom and Ian preferred them over the alternatives discussed at the time. Heck, if I remember right then you, Dode, were the one that came up with the fix to Claw and Pion - somewhere in a 15 page discussion.

Cheers
Martin

[dode74]

Martin - I've never suggested you did claim to have JJ's remit, to be clear. I was simply pointing out the difference between what JJ has the authority to do to the rules and what anyone else does. It's not a specific point about you, actually, but it was you who was asked about and are therefore referenced in the answer. Nobody has the remit JJ does.

I will take a good look at the site when I get home from holiday. Glad to hear you've made some changes, and thank you for listening. Are they fully tracked at all? Either way, I look forward to checking them out. Regarding the name, I wonder what the general reaction would be if I were to release a set of house rules called LRB7. I suspect most people would call that somewhat presumptious, if not downright dishonest.

Your excuse regarding data collection is nonsensical. You make stated aims for your ruleset with easily assessed metrics then entirely fail to even attempt to test whether the aims are met. You don't have any idea what the CIs are until you calculate them, so your claim makes no sense at all. You have the data, you are gathering more data, and you will continue to do so. To not assess it in any way means you have no claim whatsoever that your house rules work.

Doubleskulls collected more than anecdotes, iirc. The old SG forum may be chock full of those but that does not make them the only source, merely the one which takes up the most space.

If I did come up with the PiOn "fix", iirc it was in the context at the time of being for Box and MM environments, which is what the list was suggested for by Tom. I believe I linked that earlier in this thread.

[plasmoid]

Hi Dode,

Glad to hear you've made some changes, and thank you for listening. Are they fully tracked at all?

Nope. Sorry. They were done in the middle of the night while my wife and kids were sleeping.

Regarding the name, I wonder what the general reaction would be if I were to release a set of house rules called LRB7. I suspect most people would call that somewhat presumptious, if not downright dishonest.

I agree that LRB7, PBBL13 or CRP2 would all have been misleading in a way that I think CRP+ isn't. I certainly never meant it to mislead, and I think I'm fairly/overly explicit about it on the site.

You don't have any idea what the CIs are until you calculate them, so your claim makes no sense at all.

I've done quite a bit of CI calculation these past few years, and I have a pretty good idea how useful a CI I'd get from a 50-100 match sample.

To not assess it in any way means you have no claim whatsoever that your house rules work.

Fine.

Doubleskulls collected more than anecdotes, iirc.

Extended anecdotes perhaps. But nothing on the scale needed to do the kind of data work that you require for it to be non-anecdotal.
He tracked CRP-NAF stats when it started seeping into NAF tournaments, which was very much after the fact.
He also tracked his own (biggish) League, which was one of the 30(?) Leagues contribution to my original data.
Even if he wanted to, there was not enough to collect: No online platforms played PBBL (except the slow play by email), and the rules were changed every 9 weeks. Not only that, but there were enough changes in each edition of PBBL that it would be impossible to tell which rules had done what.
Each iteration of PBBL was based on feedback and anecdotal ammounts of match results.

If I did come up with the PiOn "fix", iirc it was in the context at the time of being for Box and MM environments, which is what the list was suggested for by Tom. I believe I linked that earlier in this thread.

Not sure what you linked, but Tom did mention that they were thought up as the potential NeXT step in testing - a potential PBBL13, had the PBBL process not been ended. I agree that PiOn is only a real issue in longer term Leagues. But no matter the source of the problem, the BBRC only ever had their minds on one rulebook. Not one for each environment.

Cheers
Martin

[dode74]

I think any reference to house rules being an improvement on or extension of the official name is misleading. CRP and LRB are brands in the mind of the players: they are the acronyms of officiality. LRB6+ would be just as misleading. Intended or not you've hung your ruleset on the back of that brand.

You only have 50-100 matches? If that's the case then do you think it is reasonable for people to be suggesting that these rules are playtested? Particularly since it seems you accept that you have no ability claim that the ruleset achieves the aims; in fact, you have no ability to claim it doesn't totally unbalance the game! If that's 50-100 per race then that's probably closer to 1000-2000 matches or so.

I don't think we're agreeing on a definition of 'anecdotal'. An anecdote is when someone plays a game and says "yeah, that was fine". A data point is when someone plays a game and says "the score was 2-0 and the cas were X and Y and the yardage was Z...". Multiple anecdotes do not make (useful) data, and not many data points does not suddenly become anecdoteal evidence. There is no such thing as "anecdotal amounts" of data. You and Doubleskulls had data, not just anecdotes (although there were anecdotes as well, obviously). My understanding is that he did some analysis of his data. I don't think, based on our past conversations, that you had the knowledge to analyse it at the time.
Even if there was no data at the time (which is clearly not the case), there is data now. Surely it's better to use it where we have it?

The bit I linked from Tom was when he suggested these changes be used as aa "fix" for Box in particular. I'll try to find it but tablets aren't great for this stuff and I'm away for another week or so,

[plasmoid]

Hi Again Dode,
didn't have an opportunity to reply to this until now. OK - it also slipped my mind
Let me know when you get around to re-reading the site. Like I said, I did my best.

I think any reference to house rules being an improvement on or extension of the official name is misleading.

I think adding the next number in line, like CRP2, PBBL13 or LRB7 would have an objective meaning, and would have been objectively untrue. Since it would clearly not be, say, LRB7.
Adding the "+" does not have such an objective meaning/claim. I think it implies mainly improvement, but that's a fairly subjective reading.
Now you could say that having an indication of improvement is something that could never be quantified, and would hence be inherently misleading, then I'd say - as I have before - that I'd expect people to know that if the tin says "good cake" it might not be true for everyone.

You only have 50-100 matches? If that's the case then do you think it is reasonable for people to be suggesting that these rules are playtested?

I'm assuming you're meaning "fully" playtested, "proven right" or some similar connotation - otherwize I don't see your point. They certainly have been played with the purpose of testing/trying by quite a few people.

I really only feel obligated to defend what I'm saying. Don't know about 'people'.
And I'm not saying that the rules are fully playtested at all. I don't know how many times I have to say that.

If that's 50-100 per race then that's probably closer to 1000-2000 matches or so.

...giving me a ballpark CI of around 8% on either side of the mean for each team. Which will be utterly useless.

I don't think we're agreeing on a definition of 'anecdotal'.

We probably aren't.
I figured that if someone posted: "we had necro play 3 games in our League and they won them all. They're broken" to be anecdotal. I.e. data on such a small scale as to be utterly useless. But fine - both DS and I had data. Just not enough to say anything decisive about anything. Both due to the quality and quantity of the data.
But the point we were coming from above was that Milo said that CRP+/NTBB is being held to a standard that no other previous Development of the BB rules has been held to. That holds true no matter which definition of anecdotal we use.

To wit - so many changes have been made by the BBRC to the BB rules over the years. All the way through, there was no large scale collection of data. And certainly no detail in the data beyond WDL to make any sort of well founded judgement on how, say, Wild Animal should work. As far as I know no large scale collection of league data existed before I started to collect it.

My understanding is that he did some analysis of his data. I don't think, based on our past conversations, that you had the knowledge to analyse it at the time.

I'm not aware of him doing any data analysis until after the release of CRP.
I'd also like to point out that I handed in the match data to the BBRC prior to CRP getting finalized. If DS knew how to analyse the data properly back then, then I'd expect that he would have. Rather than just let it stand like it did for several years. None of the BBRC contested the data. And they were the ones who came up with the resulting tweaks to certain teams. Not I.

Cheers
Martin

[dode74]

Hi Martin

The rewrite is a big improvement, imo.

Do you think the iPhone 6s Plus is intended as an upgrade of the iPhone 6s and is possibly an official product from the same company? Or do you think that it was something which had nothing to do with Apple? Now, do you think that calling it CRP+ might just have the same effect?

Playing with the purpose of testing is not the same as playtesting. Playtesting involves testing every aspect of the game to ensure that nothing is broken because of the changes made. You doubtless saw my rant at Cyanide regarding testing in the BB2 beta forums...
Thing is, if people are misconstruing your house rules as "playtested improvements" then I do think it is your responsibility to disabuse them of that, particularly given your own view that the + means improved!

CRP+/NTBB is being held to a standard that no other previous Development of the BB rules has been held to.

Because we can. We have the ability to collect data on it so we should do so. If you were to make changes to the game now and call it LRB7 I would want it to be very much data guided because it can be and should be.

[Darkson]

I agree that LRB7, PBBL13 or CRP2 would all have been misleading in a way that I think CRP+ isn't. I certainly never meant it to mislead, and I think I'm fairly/overly explicit about it on the site.

And yet you've been told repeatedly that people having been placing some sort of legitimacy on CRP+ exactly because you've called it "CRP". Rather than being "fairly" explicit on the site, do the sensible thing and call it something else ,"Plasbowl" for example.
Unless you like the whiff of legitimacy?

[koadah]

I agree that LRB7, PBBL13 or CRP2 would all have been misleading in a way that I think CRP+ isn't. I certainly never meant it to mislead, and I think I'm fairly/overly explicit about it on the site.

And yet you've been told repeatedly that people having been placing some sort of legitimacy on CRP+ exactly because you've called it "CRP". Rather than being "fairly" explicit on the site, do the sensible thing and call it something else ,"Plasbowl" for example.
Unless you like the whiff of legitimacy?

Though for the most part it is because he cites Galak & DoubleSkulls.

Anyway, CRP+ is catchy.

[plasmoid]

Hi Dode,
sorry for the delay.

The rewrite is a big improvement, imo.

I'm glad to hear it.

Do you think the iPhone 6s Plus is intended as an upgrade of the iPhone 6s and is possibly an official product from the same company? Or do you think that it was something which had nothing to do with Apple? Now, do you think that calling it CRP+ might just have the same effect?

Well, that's not really an excersize in free thinking. You've rigged the premise, linking it with Apple naming policies and the connotations that go with the production of a physical object.

I'd ask, if you came across a non-GW website, posting an armylist document called The Empire+, would you honestly think that it was an official GW product? Even if the site said "Jervis helped me with it"?

As Koadah said - it's catchy.
I never expected the name to be under this much scrutiny - so it is neither fool-proof nor lawyer proof.
It's just an expression of what it is: A tweaked/improved(?) version of the CRP rules.

Playing with the purpose of testing is not the same as playtesting. Playtesting involves testing every aspect of the game to ensure that nothing is broken because of the changes made.

I'm not sure you get to define words.
I know people who have been playtesting official products, playing them and taking notes. Sending info back to the gaming company, with both sides calling it playtesting. Even if it wasn't all presented in a spreadsheet. And even if the testing was of something as intangible as "that rule makes the game less enjoyable (for us)".
We're testing it in the tradition of all previous editions of BB. Playing it and seeing if anything breaks. Like the original GW studio League.

Thing is, if people are misconstruing your house rules as "playtested improvements" then I do think it is your responsibility to disabuse them of that,

I hope the rewrite has helped.

Because we can.

No we can't. Not in a way that tells us anything. It will just be pretend stats with no purpose.
Now if the rules were picked up by anyone with a large output of data, I'd welcome that data.
But let's not kid ourselves. They won't be.

Darkson said:

do the sensible thing and call it something else ,"Plasbowl" for example.
Unless you like the whiff of legitimacy?

Or I could just call them "crap rules" and be done with it?
But I like the name to reflect that they're a modified version of the CRP. I don't think Plasbowl in any way indicates what this is.
I'm not sure what "people" say. But I did notice that both Odinsgrandson and Stashman recently posted and referred to them as Plasmoids rules. So not all "people" are unable to read.
And I don't think the site is just fairly explicit. I think it is rather overly explicit.

Cheers
Martin

[dode74]

You've rigged the premise, linking it with Apple naming policies and the connotations that go with the production of a physical object.

Special pleading much? You're basically rejecting the premise on the basis that the premise is rigged when it is the premise which is my point!

if you came across a non-GW website, posting an armylist document called The Empire+, would you honestly think that it was an official GW product?

You think everyone who has heard of CRP+ has been to the website, or do you think it spread by word of mouth? Now, if you heard of an army list from a friend who said it was called Empire+ would you think that was quite possibly an official product, particularly if you were told that it was endorsed by the rules designers? You might, if you are the suspicious sort, look it up on the internet, but the pre-research premise seems pretty clear.

It's just an expression of what it is: A tweaked/improved(?) version of the CRP rules.

ALL house rules are tweaked versions of the CRP rules. All of them. If you want to call it what it is then call it "Martin's House Rules". Because that's not deceptive in any way.

I know people who have been playtesting official products, playing them and taking notes. Sending info back to the gaming company, with both sides calling it playtesting.

Enjoyment is part of it, certainly. But it's not the only part. IF you want to call what you've done playtesting then you need to specify that any feedback has been anecdotal and you have NO IDEA if the game balance changes in any way because of these rules. Because you don't have any idea. Yoou can theorycraft your way to it, but that's not the same thing as knowing it has had an actual tangible effect, positive or negative.

No we can't. Not in a way that tells us anything. It will just be pretend stats with no purpose.
Now if the rules were picked up by anyone with a large output of data, I'd welcome that data.

First, you don't know if there would be no purpose because you've not done any calculations at all: you're guessing. Second, have a word with koadah. His OFL runs with many of these rules and doubtless has a lot of data.
Why the resistance? I wonder if you're afraid that the success you've had thus far might be jeopardised by actual analysis, and if so that would be a pretty dishonest position. I hope it's not yours.

[plasmoid]

Hi Dode,

Special pleading much? You're basically rejecting the premise on the basis that the premise is rigged when it is the premise which is my point!

Are you saying that (subtle?) differences in the premise could not alter the outcome?
If your point merely was that in some imagined situation, it could be misunderstood, then I agree. I don't think anyone has contested that?

I thought I specified what I thought to be the misleading differences in the premise:
*Apple produces a physical item, that you'd buy in a box with an apple logo on. CRP is not.
*Apple has a naming policy of slapping a letter onto an existing product. GW does not.

You think everyone who has heard of CRP+ has been to the website, or do you think it spread by word of mouth?

Both, I presume.
If a friend told me about CRP+ and I wanted to actually see the rules, I'd have to go to the website.
Or, if my friend was able to explain all of the rules from memory, then I'd expect him to have been to the website.
How else would he know them?
I get that the name and the existence can spread by word of mouth. I think the actual rules are too long to do so.

If you heard of an army list from a friend who said it was called Empire+ would you think that was quite possibly an official product, particularly if you were told that it was endorsed by the rules designers?

No.

If you want to call it what it is then call it "Martin's House Rules". Because that's not deceptive in any way.

Well, I don't want to make it harder to find the rules by completely changing their name.
But I'd be happy to call them Plasmoid's CRP+.
I'll see if I can change it tonight.
I don't think that it is entirely accurate, seeing as how Galak and Ian came up with some of the rules, but I'm sure they won't mind.

IF you want to call what you've done playtesting then you need to specify that any feedback has been anecdotal and you have NO IDEA if the game balance changes in any way because of these rules.

I believe I already have specified that.

First, you don't know if there would be no purpose because you've not done any calculations at all: you're guessing. Second, have a word with koadah. His OFL runs with many of these rules and doubtless has a lot of data.

Feels like I'm replying to this on a regular basis.
Given the quantities, I believe I have a best case CI of 8% on either side of the mean, for a 16% swing. Makes it impossible to say if there is a difference or not. And that's not to mention the races that don't get played as much.
As for OFL, I'd be happy to see the data. But as he does not use all of the rules, and there is no way to discern the difference of each individual rule, I can't use his data to tell me how the complete NTBB package would affect the game.

Why the resistance? I wonder if you're afraid that the success you've had thus far might be jeopardised by actual analysis, and if so that would be a pretty dishonest position. I hope it's not yours.

I think I've replied this as well.
But here goes: Seeing as how there are people hell bent on tearing down NTBB, here is what would happen:
Given the size of the involved CI's, it would be impossible to tell what the actual effect was.
This would mean that certain people would loudly claim, that the NTBB can not be proven to Work (I agree), and given the null hypothesis, that this is the same as them not working (since I can not prove that they do).
I'd rather just say, as I already explicitly do, that the NTBB can not be proven to work.

Then, if I ever acquired thousands af data points, so I could narrow the CI's so much that I could actually say that they either worked or that they did not work (rather than 'we don't know'), then I'd be happy to examine those data and consider further changes.
But it's not like that many people play NTBB (or just Plasmoids CRP+) anyway.

Cheers
Martin

[Darkson]

But it's not like that many people play NTBB (or just Plasmoids CRP+) anyway.

BB2?

[dode74]

If your point merely was that in some imagined situation, it could be misunderstood, then I agree. I don't think anyone has contested that?

My point was that in this actual situation you have been misunderstood, and the misunderstanding has come about through your own choice of words. Your "differences" are irrelevant to the fact that someone only hearing the name with a "+" on the end will associate one produce with the other directly. There is a reason people go to court over this sort of thing.

Both, I presume.

You think everyone goes to the website? What planet does that happen on? Presumably you have website data to back this up?

Well, I don't want to make it harder to find the rules by completely changing their name.

How do you think that would happen? It's on the same website with the same links. Put in a redirect to "Martin's House Rules" and suddenly it's not called anything to do with CRP at all.

I believe I already have specified that.

Have you said it on the website? Surely it should come with a disclaimer?

Koadah's league is OLC - apologies to him. Again, ask him. You can at the very least look at the rules he does use.

Given the size of the involved CI's, it would be impossible to tell what the actual effect was.
This would mean that certain people would loudly claim, that the NTBB can not be proven to Work (I agree), and given the null hypothesis, that this is the same as them not working (since I can not prove that they do).
I'd rather just say, as I already explicitly do, that the NTBB can not be proven to work.

It's not the same thing as them not working. It's simply that you can't say they meet the goals. You've set out some very specific goals in NTBB and you have NO IDEA if they work or not.
And I don't think anyone wants to "tear down" NTBB. I certainly don't. I'm just against the insidious way it has entered the BB-playing world and the effect it is having on the REAL rules.

it's not like that many people play NTBB (or just Plasmoids CRP+) anyway.

BB2 contains Brets, human buffs, and your CHANGED bank rule. Where did that new bank rule come from, btw? As far as I can tell you've basically made it up, mashing together Petty Cash and the Bank, yet your webpage on provenance says:

Bank: at either 100K or 150K

=> Unchanged – but reworded for clarity

Is that true? Because the rewording changes the way it works if the original was the same as Galak explained it to me.

[Regash]

But it's not like that many people play NTBB (or just Plasmoids CRP+) anyway.

BB2?

BB2 is only partial NTBB/CRP+.
And even then, they took actual rules as well as outdated, like 90K for Orc Blitzers.
Nobody knows what rules exactly Cyanide uses... Except from pure rubbish, if you ask me.

[plasmoid]

Just to clarify: They took 0 rules from NTBB. And 2 out of 10 rules from Plasmoids CRP+. I'm not sure that qualifies as anything
Cheers
Martin