OK, thanks for the links Tom. The permanent sticky here will help folks.
What I'm finding difficult to deal with is this whole 'grey area'. The LRB 6.0 ruleset was/is to be 'set in stone' for the next few years. The Official Rules, as published by GW and laid down in black and white. Thanks to the hard work of the BBRC and the input of the community, hello stability. No more Rules Reviews, no more experimental rules... hello accessibility for all. What we're going to have now is an Official Ruleset with 'semi-official' but widely accepted (amongst the existing community) additions.
So what is exactly the status of these rosters?
Darkson wrote: ...they're official, but not in the rulebook.
Doubleskulls wrote:Darkson they are not "official" whatever Galak might have posted on the subject. They aren't in the printed rule book and won't be in LRB6 (barring a seismic shift in GW policy).
That said the BBRC has endorsed the teams and they would be being slated to be official in LRB6, however GW (not even JJ) have said no....
They are allowed in NAF sanctioned games too.
GalakStarscraper wrote:Darkson wrote:If JJ says they're official, that's good enough for me.
I agree.
To be clear though JJ is weird on this subject.
He voted twice that the teams should be official in the BBRC votes.
He endorsed the teams receiving NAF sanctioning.
He supported the teams being included in the official GW tournaments the Chaos Cup and the Dungeonbowl.
But if you ask him if the teams are official he says no and gives you the answer that Ian gave.
Galak
GalakStarscraper wrote:Doubleskulls wrote:Darkson they are not "official" whatever Galak might have posted on the subject.
I think Ian you have to "deal" with the fact that some folks think JJ and the BBRC voting to approve the teams, the NAF allowing them in the rankings, and 2 of the official GW run Major tournaments allowing them to be played counts in their mind as "official" even if they are not "official" as you use the word....
... I'm not saying the teams are official as you interpret that word.....
Galak
Are these rosters Official or not? ( Question is rhetorical.)
We've arrived at the point where is there is apparently no simple one word answer to a very simple question.
Just personal musing now.....
If RJ hadn't produced such an exquisite ( and popular!) Frog team ( not forgetting Goblinforge's version either) would we be in this situation now? I wonder whether the Slann roster was well received and popular enough for independent companies to fill a vacant market niche or whether the beauty of the miniatures themselves actually encouraged people to buy and start playing Slann who might not have otherwise considered it? Are we getting close to the point where quality of miniatures available is impacting on the ruleset? I'm not convinced that the cart has overtaken the horse, but the cart may well be pushing the horse along a little....hmmm...interesting... my gut instinct is that if there had been no 'frog' miniatures available (or at least none that had been so popularly received) then there may well have been less of an issue with 'not official' amongst the community. I may well be wrong on that though... a little out of the loop recently.
Likewise, did the NAF's decision to rank the 'semi-official' teams in turn drive sales and encourage tournament organisers to include the 3 rosters or did that reflect existing popularity amongst membership and tournament organisers? That's an equation I couldn't begin to judge the balance of from outside ( although I'd have personally weighted it heavily from inside..apologies for the digression). Regardless, when I see 'NAF endorsed' is being linked with how 'official' (or otherwise) something should be considered or interpreted it gives me pause for thought. The NAF was never conceived to have any part of (or any say in) the rule making process. If indeed the NAF did respond to their membership's wishes to include unofficial/experimental rosters in their rankings than that's one thing. For anybody to infer that any such decision should give any more 'official legitimacy' is quite another and crosses the line. An indicator of popular acceptance; yes... a direct correlation.... no.
As I said, just personal musing, not really looking for any 'answers'. A lot of 'ifs and buts' involved. A bit of discussion welcome though.
Whatever. We are where we are, a complicated combination of a lot of factors has opened Pandora's Box on this, but the 'fudge' and lack of clarity is far from ideal. We've got to make the best of it I suppose.
Joe Noob? I know it's a simple question. No, there is no clear or simple answer. Have you got half an hour? Good. Sit down and I'll try and explain why...."
