CRP+

[Itchen Masack]

a serious risk of schism.

We could all bring spare pants just in case?

[lunchmoney]

This 11 rules make the game better. CRP+ should not be a problem for GW because they sell BB no more. Neither should be for Cyanide because BBRC just make their game better and it's easily fixed with a patch.

LOL !!
You seriously don't know cyanide that well then. They haven't even got the current rules right with several editions and "patches"!

[perraks]

This 11 rules make the game better. CRP+ should not be a problem for GW because they sell BB no more. Neither should be for Cyanide because BBRC just make their game better and it's easily fixed with a patch.

LOL !!
You seriously don't know cyanide that well then. They haven't even got the current rules right with several editions and "patches"!

Oh, i see I don't have the game since I heard the AI is terrible and to play with another human I prefer tabletop.

I know is offtopic but seems difficult for me to understand how botocs and other java fanmade games work fine and "high budget project" cyanide game cannot.

So, if cyanide is againt the CRP+ it could of couse be a problem, maybe the best could be to contact them, I heard they based the game on 6.0 at a time when games workshop considered 5.0 the official is this right? This could be good news for them to consider ok a CRP+

[Darkson]

I heard they based the game on 6.0 at a time when games workshop considered 5.0 the official is this right? This could be good news for them to consider ok a CRP+

Nope, you heard wrong. The game was based on LRB5 when LRB5 was official, then changed when the CRP replaced it.

[plasmoid]

Hi guys,
Never nice to stumble into a thread where you get trashed.
Some short replies never the less.

Smeborg, for the record it wasn't me who asked the original question. I publish the annual tweaks to (NTBB) and discuss Them before and immediately after 'publication', but I don't recognize (someone elses) description of me prostituting the rules all over the internet.

Also, Smeborg, I take no offense being called a balance fetichist. But I add that even in NTBB, there is a notable difference between top of tier 1 and bottom of tier 3. Or at least that is my intent.

Shteve-o, with NTBB2014 I used the data to the best of my ability, and gave a clear description of my goals. You were one of the guys asking for that. I'm a little surprised to get thrashed for my use of data (current thread on house rulning khorne notwithstanding).

If anybody bothers to read my site, I think the distinction between the CRP+ and NTBB-rosters is mentioned repeatedly and clearly - and the site falls in 2 distinctly marked halves. This also at the request of a few people. Yes, I could split it onto separate pages. Or how about different servers? I'm a little sick of doing requests. I think what is written is very clear. For example:
"It should be noted that the ex-BBRC involvement in the CRP+ part of these rules does not imply that the NTBB is somehow a semi-official project"

Someone construed the site as me leeching off the CRP+ rules. My intent is the other Way around. How my site became reasonably well known, I see it as a vessel to promote the actual CRP+ rules. So despite what you May think, I don't in the slightest think, wish or even plot to secretly have NTBB replace the official rules. They're not that popular. They are house rules for the like minded and will no doubt remaining so. Seriously.

Since we're even having this conversation, I think quite a few people know what CRP+ is, and if CRP+ or a version thereof got accepted by Cyanide/NAF/FUMBBL/GW, then I would enjoy the luxury of flinging a cape over my shoulder and going (quietly) "My work here is done"

But enough of that: Dode asked about their history, and I'll do a bullitpoint version:
*Not long after CRP got finalized, Galak published a list of things that he and/or the BBRC had slated for testing or just wanted to test, before GW abruptly ended the LRB-process.
I don't have that list, but Galak or someone with strong Google-fu could probably find it. I'm guessing there were roughly 10 items on the list.

*At some point - the details escape me - I set up the NTBB site and a few leagues providing soft feedback (not hard data) on the CRP+/NTBB mix. The CRP+ element used at the time was my edited version of Galaks list. I think all (or maybe all except 1) of the items on Galaks list were on there, as well as 2(?) items of my own. Yes purists, they Can be identified and purged. But read on.

*In the time of Cupcake(?)'s 400 page rants, Ian and Tom got convinced that CPOMB was a problem, and added it to the list. They also created a fix, which Dode and I discussed with them, and we/they arrived at the current one.

*This was january 2012 IIRC, and with Ian and Galak agreeing on that particularly controversial rule, I contacted Them with my CRP+ list, and asked (and I don't remember the exact wording) if it was possible to tweak the items on the list to reach a compromise that they could both get behind. We talked things through, and reached an agreement on february 2012.

*Later, don't remember when, I contacted Babs and Geggster with the list.
Babs supported the items on the list (whatever that means), while Geggster liked some and disliked others, but would not endorse anything publically (or privatfly), because he feared it would be divisive to the community.

Those are the highlights, I think.

Finally, a summary of the CRP+ list in question:
1) Bank. Was playtested prior to CRP, and approved by the BBRC. It was the only item vetoed by JJ. He considered it too complicated. Wording has changed, but the rule is the same. The recent increase to 150k was suggested on forums by both Ian and Galak, so I followed suit.

2) Claw and PiOn. As described above.

3) +1 to fouling. On Galaks list it was "assisting yourself" - so it didn't apply when fouling in a TZ. But we agreed that it was needlessly complicated (and different from blocking assists)

4) Sneaky Git. On Galaks list as "guard skill for fouling". After year one of testing, nobody took it or planned to take it. So we came up with the new version prior to the 2012 agreement.

5) Slight tweak to the suggested SE levels. Entirely me, but agreed on by the others. With bank raised to 150k since the PBBL testing, I think they make even more sense.

6) No bonus cash on concessions. Me again, but agreed on.

7) Wizards to 200k. Also me, and approved.
5, 6 & 7 could be cut.

Right Stuff voids tackle on blocks. On Galaks list.

9) Break Tackle Khemri. On Galaks list. Used in the final stages of PBBL. But the BBRC couldn't agree on this one rule - so had to come up with an (untested) compromise. Much as I like this team, I think the CRP Khemri is now so recognized by the community, that changing it would be very controversial.

10) Buff to humans. On Galaks list I think. Perhaps not this particular version. Perhaps just the intent to buff. The team listed was agreed on by all.

Cheers
Martin

[dode74]

Not long after CRP got finalized, Galak published a list of things that he and/or the BBRC had slated for testing or just wanted to test, before GW abruptly ended the LRB-process.

Thanks Martin. That's not confirmation that they wrote the list at all and confirms what I thought to be the case already: it was a list for testing.

[Shteve0]

Martin, I'm sorry if you mistook my post as trashing you. The parts I guess caused offense are those that suggest (1) that the references you use to refer to your rules imply an undue legitimacy and (2) that the NTBB changes are too unstable and undergo too little testing to be considered markedly more robust than other, untested house rules.

I apologise for any offense caused in my expression, but not for either of those sentiments. I still believe the latter (2) is a case of the burden of proof falling on the developer. The former (1) is encapsulated in your post above... I honestly think that calling a list of house rules that may have been accepted for testing by some former members of a disbanded committee "CRP+" is, unfortunately, grandiosity.

[plasmoid]

Hi guys,
@Dode: yes, it was a list for testing. Only thing to add is that for the entre the PBBL process, the BBRC decided what went into testing, and most of what was tested was eventually accepted. So PBBL would have moved that way had it not been ended, but you're right that it could all have fallen after testing.

@Steve0 - regarding (2) I agree that testing of my house rules is no more rigorous than anyone elses, and I don't want to claim that they're right by some objective standard. I could certainly never produce the volumes of data required.
Regarding (1) I think you're quick to cast the BBRC aside. They (and mainly Galak) made all decisions that turned into the rulebook that we have today. To me it matters what they had in mind, before GW decided to fire them and claim the work as it's own. True, they have no more authority - except whatever one thinks comes from crafting the current rules.

[dode74]

To me it matters what they had in mind

Fair enough. As you already said, though, this list was just for testing and could well have been all or part accepted or indeed rejected entirely. Without anything further in terms of testing it is impossible to say, so I find it unreasonable to suggest any sort of intent on their part as far as these rules go. As you say, you could not produce the volume of data required; that's one reason I would want to have a test league in an online environment.

[Shteve0]

Regarding (1) I think you're quick to cast the BBRC aside. They (and mainly Galak) made all decisions that turned into the rulebook that we have today. To me it matters what they had in mind, before GW decided to fire them and claim the work as it's own. True, they have no more authority - except whatever one thinks comes from crafting the current rules.

Oh, I'm not disregarding the BBRC. I'm pointing out that a list of items that they may or may not have approved (and given that Jervis had a veto on rules and had already rejected one of them, I think that's unlikely) can't automatically be considered in the same breath as being a proxy of either an LRB or CRP. To call your list CRP+ implies that it's what the CRP was intended to be, which is a bit too much of a leap.

[Steam Ball]

JJ vetoed the tested bank and we got the untested petty cash.

[plasmoid]

@Dode: Agreed. Testing and potential rejection would be the way to go. No argument there.
@Shteve: 4 years ago, with GW having just disbanded the BBRC while stabbing Galak in the back, it very much felt like a continuation of the work that GW had "cut short" (as Galak has called it). Now time has passed, and I certainly don't think that any seats on a new would-be council should be hereditory. Nor that Galaks old list/CRP+ is a given. But a new council might review the old list, and take up anything on it that made sense.

Cheers
Martin

[Pakulkan]

Guess we are always focusing in the precise list of changes proposed in the CRP+ and forget about the general question regarding the NAF being a good substitute for GW as source for what is canonical for the game.

Please, note that if we consider the possibility of NAF housing a BBRC these people could eventually implement CRP+, implement other changes or do not touch LRB 6.0 at all.

Trying to be constructive, and to walk step by step, I don't care about that, honestly. Guess the most important thing (and first question of the debate) is if NAF should take this challenge or not.

Good points from Steve about this, but would appreciate also a view from the inside of the NAF office.

[Gaixo]

The issue with is that the office only hold meetings once a month. So any response will only be from an individual and represent no consensus from the committee.

[Fassbinder75]

The issue with is that the office only hold meetings once a month. So any response will only be from an individual and represent no consensus from the committee.

What do you talk about? Is it for public consumption - I can't find any records/minutes after a cursory scan of the NAF site.
This site might be full of grumpy old bastards, but it is the de facto Blood Bowl forum for the English speaking world - how come we only ever see you or Mike (sann) on here. This beppe cat, where's he at?

Inquiring minds want to know what our elected representatives think!