Talk Fantasy Football

CRP+ - 11 house rules to improve CRP Blood Bowl, approved for further unofficial testing by Tom Anders, Ian Williams and Stephen Babbage of the former BBRC

http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm

How many of your leagues uses CRP+ rules????

And just to be clear ... my approval ends with those 11. I don't agree with all the stuff that starts at 2. Narrowing the Tiers and after.

I wonder if tourneys are willing to adapt those changes?

daloonieshaman wrote:I wonder if tourneys are willing to adapt those changes?

#
will the NAF still sanction tournaments that do?

maybe that's a question for the T.O candidates.......

Hi Stashman,
I know a handful that use CRP+ with NTBB rosters.
I'd guess more use straight CRP+, but I have no idea how many.
Cheers
Martin

Have Chaos Pact Minotaurs, Trolls and Ogres always had access to mutation skills, or is that one of your league changes?

They've always had access on doubles.

Gaixo wrote:They've always had access on doubles.

My bad for not phrasing the question properly, the NTBB lists seem to suggest that they can have them on a 'normal' roll. That was just what I was trying to clarify.

Hi Jembo17

Their roster does state: Troll, Ogre and Minotaur may only take a mutation on
a doubles skill roll.
(Also, Pact is listed as a roster with no changes)

Cheers
Martin

plasmoid wrote:Hi Jembo17

Their roster does state: Troll, Ogre and Minotaur may only take a mutation on
a doubles skill roll.
(Also, Pact is listed as a roster with no changes)

Cheers
Martin

Cheers for that, i'll keep my mouth shut now(!).

I really enjoy reading the changes to Plasmoids' set of rules and the fact they do change over time ( after testing I assume).

Personally I'd like Piling On to only be a skill useable during a Blitz action which would limit the crazy damage it can cause. Figure if you're gonna knock someone down and pile into them afterwards then you'll need the momentum of a running start.

It's sadly not that uncommon in games for the entire defensive LOS to evaporate before even getting a turn due to an offensive LOS of PO/MB(/Claw).

Sorry for recovering this thread.

I just wonder why these changes wasn't included in the LRB?

It is because 3 out of 4 members agreed and full consensus was necessary? (And just for curiosity, who was the BBRC member that did not agree with those 11 changes?)

Was a question of timing?

Thanks for clarifying that.

Really easy answer. These changes were not included in the LRB because Martin devised them only after the LRB was 'completed'.

But even with the aid of a time machine a) Jervis has full veto and b) Martin is perhaps exaggerating when he suggests that certain people have signed off on NTBB or CRP+. My understanding is that some people have just said "Yeah, they look okay". Which is quite different to officially saying "this is exactly what I would have done if the BBRC existed now".

I assumed that.

What about the old question: Does NAF considered to endorse a new BBRC?

Some advice on this from the inside will be very welcome as well.

They have the power to provide consensus to the community (compared with more fragmented Mordheim, BF:G, etc.) and it seems there is margin for improvement of the rules (in this sense, should note Khemri are very unpopular, for example).

I don't have knowledge of committee-level discussion, but this isn't something I have discussed with staff on even on a casual "what if?" basis. Any changes (even good ones) would fragment the community. Even if every NAF member universally approved of whatever a 'new BBRC' did, it would still create a divide between those in the know and those coming to the game new. I have some issues with the current CRP, but IMO the value of a central recognised ruleset far outweighs the value of improving the rules by 1% for the 1% of us who play often enough to notice. Which is a shame, because I think an evolving metagame would be a massive boon for Blood Bowl.

I also assume it would be no good for our relationship with GW. And that is something we know NAF has a firm policy on trying to maintain, or least not ruin.