CRP+

[dode74]

Darkson - how different are they? Are the DoW/40k different, or are they simply variations? I've not played WHQ on iOS, but have played Talisman Prologue.

If GW give Cyanide permission to change the LRB (and they'd have to announce if that were the case, I suspect) then where, exactly, does TT stand?

[Fassbinder75]

Talisman (on Android) and WHQuest (on IoS) are licensed products that are different from the board games, and I've not seen anyone suggest either board game is changed to follow them.

This has been raised before and I don't think they are valid comparisons. Both are narrative based games, there is no such thing as competitive WHQ or Talisman. Necromunda, Epic or Mordheim would be better comparisons. I know for one that Necromunda has a community based 'living rulebook' (Yakromunda) but there would no doubt be further homebrew variants floating in the ether.

So there certainly is precedent for a manufacturer-independent ruleset.

[Darkson]

I've played IoS Quest, but don't own it (Apple! ), but there are fundamental changes to the board game such as being able to go back to a character after their action (in BB terms, declaring a Blitz with player #1 and doing the block, moving player #2, then going back to player #1).

Talisman are more subtle, but I've only got Prologue (the single player version) and not the multi-player version so I'm going off friends remarks, and it's also been a long time since I played the game (the club mate with it was posted elsewhere ).

[Darkson]

@Fassbinder - I agree that those games are closer to BB, but they don't have licensed digital versions (yet).
Mordheim is going digital, and also has a community edition (also on Yaktribe), but I don't think people will drop that to use PC(?) rules.



DoW was very different, and had some units that haven't made 40k the miniatures game. No idea on DoWII as I never played it.

[Joemanji]

Slightly different situation, in that Necromunda and BFG had nowhere near the same level of community input and development as the Blood Bowl LRBs and CRP. So our community has a reason to be happy with the last set of rules GW gave their official stamp to, as they are already very much 'our' rules.

I'd have no problems in principle with a manufacturer-independent ruleset. I'd personally love a NAF BBRC / LRB process, but that is partly a selfish desire as I would love to contribute. But for the reasons I mentioned above, in the current climate that would alienate the casual TT coach, and they vastly outnumber the hardcore. We - the idiots who spend so much time thinking and talking about and playing BB - need those casual coaches to make the TT hobby worth playing. Otherwise it will collapse in on itself very rapidly.

But the value of supporting CRP rests in its central status. If issues with Cyanide lessened that value, then I'd much prefer the keen minds of TT / FUMBBL develop a new rules set over whatever the Cyanide coders and marketeers happen to come up with.

[dode74]

But the value of supporting CRP rests in its central status.

Exactly. Fragmentation of the rules will lead to issues, particularly for new players. That's why I suggested that engagement with the officially licensed version (potentially allowing input into the game from those with the experience to do it combined with volume of data to validate or reject any proposed changes), which will be a gateway for many players, might be better than a schism.

[Darkson]

Given your (and Tom's) accounts of working with them on Khorne, I'd rather we kept them out of the rules.

[dode74]

Part of that was due to their initial intention to not have community involvement at all. Without giving too much away, it was only through accident that there was any involvement, and the limitations in place were partly due to work which had already been done. I am somewhat more confident that they will involve the community to a greater extent in future, particularly given that the latest team addition is, like it or hate it, of community origin from the beginning.

The point is that the sooner the community gets on board and talks rather than shunning them the more chance there is of having some sort of say in direction.

[Joemanji]

But the value of supporting CRP rests in its central status.

Exactly. Fragmentation of the rules will lead to issues, particularly for new players. That's why I suggested that engagement with the officially licensed version (potentially allowing input into the game from those with the experience to do it combined with volume of data to validate or reject any proposed changes), which will be a gateway for many players, might be better than a schism.

There is no fragmentation. There is the board game. And then there is the computer adaptation of the board game. These things are entirely distinct.

[dode74]

I think you missed my point about the PC version being a gateway for people into TT?

By fragmentation I was talking about various rulesets being bandied around as "official" even on TT. People will consider what they buy to be official regardless of the NAF or anyone else's stance on it.

[Darkson]

You give a lot more credit to Cyanide/Focus than they deserve. They couldn't even get the basic rules of the game right in 5 years, who do you suppose they'd involve the community in a hypothetical LRB_Cyanide?

Cyanide: "Here's our latest addition, please test"
Community: "It's broken because of A, B and C. Also, D doesn't work like you described."
Cyanide: " "
Cyanide: " "
Community: "Hello?"
Community: "Are you going to get back to us?"
.
.
.
.
Cyanide: "We have fixed B, and now it's correct."
Community: "The fix for B has broken X, Y and Z."
Cyanide: " "
Cyanide: " "
Community: "Hello?"
Community: "Are you going to get back to us?"
.
.
.
.
CYanide: "This is now the official rule, and the programmer has left so it can't be changed. Thank you for your particiaption."


And when they decide to bring out BB3, and change this, that or the other just to make it distinct, do the TT players and the NAF just drop the rules of the time to use them?

No thanks, TT players for TT rules. I can understand the NAFs POV on not having a NAFBBRC, and while I may not agree with it (I don't think GW will give two hoots, see the comments on the Necromunda and Mordheim Community editions) I can respect it. But if someone has to step up I'd rather trust those that play the game other those that don't and that don't understand it.

[Darkson]

I think you missed my point about the PC version being a gateway for people into TT?

And that's great, but once they start playing TT they need to learn to play the real rules anyway. I've yet to meet a Cyanide-TT player that thinks they have to use a skill if they have it for example, or any other of the many bugs in the game.
New TT players will get rules wrong, regardless of how they come to the game, so better to teach them the real rules that rules that have to be fudged due to the limitations of the software people.

[dode74]

who [why?] do you suppose they'd involve the community in a hypothetical LRB_Cyanide?

I can't imagine...
Bear in mind that their latest big change is a community origin race as opposed to a Cyanide imposed one.

Burning bridges with people who have licence for products just does not seem wise. Attempting to influence those people seems far more sensible than sticking fingers in ears and going "la la la" all day while the rules are changed around you. I'm not saying those attempts will succeed, but surely it has to be worth a pop?

play the real rules

It's what those "real rules" will be which is the question. Currently it's CRP.

[Chris]

I think some of the changes you can simple accept (right stuff change for example).

Why would you "simply accept" those changes?

Because they are minor with no significant effect on the majority of teams? Moderate boost to halflings - so what, goblins - so what, Ogres - so what. Only question would be Orcs, but from the games that have tested it hasn't resulted in a change to Orc performance.

[dode74]

Only question would be Orcs, but from the games that have tested it hasn't resulted in a change to Orc performance.

How many games is that? With how many coaches?

My point is that we don't know what the effect is, and without testing we won't.