CRP+

[Darkson]

Bear in mind that their latest big change is a community origin race as opposed to a Cyanide imposed one.

Is that a hint on the make up of the Brett roster? Or are you just saying it's the same name as a roster that has been made in the community before, in which case you could say the same for Khorne or pretty much any other roster they made up.

[dode74]

The fact that it is a Brett roster, which is a well-known roster within the community (as opposed to something more off-the-shelf like Snakemen) is an indication itself. As to the makeup of the roster, who could possibly know...

[Chris]

The Epic guys established a tourney rules set and release new lists.

http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp/

[dode74]

Nice. Do they have the same issues with multiple platforms and GW?

[lunchmoney]

I've played in a few Epic tourneys and we have no issues with GW. But there are licenced products out there to clash with.

[Chris]

Nice. Do they have the same issues with multiple platforms and GW?

Multiple platforms...

Yes. The main online presence for Epic uses slightly different (more detailed) army lists, may not have all the same (small) rule changes and has a lot more fan army lists (including flashy pdf rules supplements). Most tournies though us the Uk set as it is the most internally consistent and balanced. However most casual play seems accept the extra online lists and that fracture hasn't been fixed (if only because online changes seem to go faster than the tourny playtesters can keep up with and they aren't as interested in variant lists offering only minor changes to existing armies).

GW?

Well GW came down on one guy who simply started making 6mm versions of all the GW models (far better quality than the exisiting GW models as well...) which killed things a bit as there isn't the same supporting inductry that Blood Bowl has. There is a lot of 6mm sci fi out there, but it lacks the look/theme of many of the GW pieces and Epic fans tended to be abit obsessive to start with!

[Chris]

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.

I beleive this was in the context of introducing too many changes at once?

I am happy to trust my 28 years of playing games, including more hours on BB than anything else, to judge a change minor and therefore able to be bundled into a package of more significant changes, or a brace of minor changes.

Some things just don't afect the meta enough to have a year of testing just for them. Another example would be giving throw-ra's and blitz-ra's thick skull.

A more significant change would be to Sneaky Git and allowing a player to go in the KO box rather than the injury box. While not the focus of testing you couldn't bundle a bunch of these level changes into testing.

A major change would be killstack alterations. I wouldn't bundle any other major changes (bank for example) into testing with this as it affects so many different areas. Note I am not sold on the solutions presented here.

So one major change, maybe a mid level change like sneaky git, then a bunch of minor changes. That would be a package I would be happy with to test, I wouldn't see the minor changes needing testing in isolation.

[Dark Duke]

But the value of supporting CRP rests in its central status

I guess the point Pakulkan it's trying to make is, would the CRP lose that central status if it becomes a live document that gets reviewed by a NAF BBRC? With a NAF BBRC following the same guidelines than the original BBRC, the only difference would be that is not "approved" by GW but, since they have forgotten about the game, would that make a real difference?

I understand that then, the TT game will deviate from the Cyanide videogame but, as other people is pointing out:
a) that already happens with the bugs on the game
b) it can still happen by Cyanide introducing any modifications they want in the future (i.e new rosters)
c) I think most of us agree that TT game and videogame don't need to be exactly the same

But for the reasons I mentioned above, in the current climate that would alienate the casual TT coach, and they vastly outnumber the hardcore

I'm not sure I understand why having a NAF BBRC would alienate the casual TT coach. Is it because the casual TT coach wouldn't keep up to speed with the changes since he doesn't check regularly (or at all) the website where NAF BBRC would post the rules? Having people with different versions of the rulesets may be a problem, I think it is a fair concern, but that happened already when we had the original BBRC and it didn't look like a problem then. What would be the difference now?

Definitely an interesting discussion (at least for us, hardcore fans, hehe)

[dode74]

I am happy to trust my 28 years of playing games

I don't doubt it and am not questioning it. Who else trusts their own experience though, and who gets to decide? What happens when they get to decide and you don't and they choose something you don't like? While you may be entirely reasonable about it what happens when it's the other way around? Without an "official" stamp (whatever that actually means) there is huge scope for problems.

That would be a package I would be happy with to test

I'd be happy to test anything. It's application of changes before testing (and I do mean rigorous testing over lots of games and coaches, something which a platform like FUMBBL might be well suited to) which I have an issue with.

[txapo]

A game belong to those who play it!! Don't forget the point! We should elect a new BBRC using the NAF for that it would be great elections to hold!!!

[Steam Ball]

I guess if the game is no longer available as commercial product, even scans of the documents are legal (like abandowares). Correct me in this point if I am wrong.

You are wrong. Sadly. Laws should be that if something is not used for a given time, others can pick it up and culture would not only be preserved but also enriched. But they are not that way, things get locked until the copyright expires; which so far seems to be ethernal thanks to periodic retroactive expansions.

[Fassbinder75]

A game belong to those who play it!!

+1000

I get frustrated (in context of course) with the NAF's shrinking attitude here. Even if the organisation collectively stood up, carved the CRP into granite and said "these are the rules & teams for eternity, so spake Nuffle" it would be better than the servile, hand-wringing approach to Games Workshop it has now.

[Chris]

I am happy to trust my 28 years of playing games

I don't doubt it and am not questioning it. Who else trusts their own experience though, and who gets to decide? What happens when they get to decide and you don't and they choose something you don't like? While you may be entirely reasonable about it what happens when it's the other way around? Without an "official" stamp (whatever that actually means) there is huge scope for problems.

True which is why you have a final committee, designer etc.

But some stuff, just isn't worth testing. Best example of this was doing the Epic development, some of the early army list drafts just contained broken elements. The insistance on getting test games to 'prove' some of this just made a bunch of playtesters pack it in as they saw no purpose reporting where they already knew as the answer. (And this was stuff that when the more insistent individuals were made to playtest against one of us would result in there side getting annihilated to the last man - a comparison would be giving an elf team goblin stats and insisting you have to play games with it against dwarves to prove they aren't performing as intended.)

[dode74]

But some stuff, just isn't worth testing. Best example of this was doing the Epic development, some of the early army list drafts just contained broken elements. The insistance on getting test games to 'prove' some of this just made a bunch of playtesters pack it in as they saw no purpose reporting where they already knew as the answer.

Entirely fair, but this is almost the opposite of what we are talking about here. Nobody is suggesting testing obviously broken changes, but I am asking that not obviously broken changes be tested before being considered "official" in whatever capacity that means. This means testing in various environments so we don't get unintended consequences.

As for a "final designer", who really has the authority to appoint one in a manner which won't cause problems?

[Arclight]

Hey all,

Let me say that this is an interesting, and important (IMHO), discussion. Thanks for that.

As far as I am aware, the previous BBRC members are still alive and well. They did some really great (and thankless?) work and have brought us a better playing version of this wonderful game.

So I'd suggest having them come together for a rules reunion. Then adding to their number some new blood like the current NAF officers and some representatives from the people "in the trenches" like the major tournament runners (NAF Cup, Chaos, Zlurpee, Spike, Ausbowl (sp?), Dungeonbowl, Eurobowl... off the top of my head) and big online groups like Fumbbl and Cyanide's League runners.

These people likely know what is in need of tweaking, changing or re-setting. LRB7.0 can not simply stay unwritten out of the fear of making mistakes, but instead needs to be written in the hope of all the greater fun and stronger growth that could come out of such a creation.

Innovation should be encouraged. Changes should not be feared. I regret the things that I haven't tried out of fear far more than the things I have tried and failed at. Just my two cents at a late hour and after a pint of beer.

Cheers,
-Dan