We could all bring spare pants just in case?dode74 wrote: a serious risk of schism.
![:P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
Moderator: TFF Mods
We could all bring spare pants just in case?dode74 wrote: a serious risk of schism.
LOL !!perraks wrote: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.
Oh, i seelunchmoney wrote:LOL !!perraks wrote: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.
You seriously don't know cyanide that well then. They haven't even got the current rules right with several editions and "patches"!![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Nope, you heard wrong. The game was based on LRB5 when LRB5 was official, then changed when the CRP replaced it.perraks wrote: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+
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.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.
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.To me it matters what they had in mind
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.plasmoid wrote: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.
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.Gaixo wrote: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.