Talk Fantasy Football

Sigh, we're going round in circles slightly. People are playing Khorne in tournaments, so we're talking about adding them to the database.

So? People can play what they like, but why this unsupported race over any other? If people want to play an unofficial race good for them, doesn't mean they should be ranked, or even on the database.

Probably because they are the most widely played alt team in tournaments, though that isn't saying very much. (Only about a dozen tournaments per year use Khorne, almost all of them in Italy and Spain.) They also seem pretty popular in tabletop leagues, though I don't have any statistics to support that. Miniatures from several manufacturers exist. They were previously voted in by the committee but put on hold. I think those are all valid reasons to give them greater consideration than AV9 sea elves or whatever, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter. Hence the referendum.

Well I guess this is why we're talking about a referendum, isn't it? The point of this thread isn't just to discuss how much we like or hate the Khorne roster, or to kick the dead horse which is Cyanide. It's to establish how the NAF will deal with future teams. And polling NAF coaches is probably the best solution. What's the alternative? I can think of two - "Never change anything, ever", which would be popular enough with some people. Gamers are a conservative lot when it comes to game rules. These people will vote "No" anyway.

The other option that I can imagine is just "NAF decides unilaterally what to support". And while I doubt the end result would be much different (surely they'd ask around anyway, and only consider teams with a reasonable consensus), this would lead to a lot of gamers feeling upset about not being consulted.

So let's vote! If most of us want a couple new teams to play or not play at tournaments, go for it! If it turns out that I'm part of a minority, I can deal with it.

(But come on, you know there'll be a race to see who can be the first to get to 26!)

I really don't care as I am neither a NAF member nor do I attend any tournaments.
But, strictly speaking, the NAF introduced three teams already (Pact, Underworld & Slann) that have not been released by GW as official.
I know, they did that for the wrong reasons, but there you have it. And one (Slann) remains not official as they already said they won't be part of the 2016 release of the rules.

If you guys already had 3 inofficial teams running in the NAF statistics and still have one, why not stacking up to three again?
Alternatively or additionally, there could be an option for inofficial teams, no matter what roster was allowed on that tournament.
So if someone played Apes, Wildorcs, Slaneesh Chaos... He get's a rating for inofficial team roster. Why not? At least the other guys playing a regular teams gets his data added instead of losing this match record.

Blood Bowl is, after all, a game. Games are being played to have fun.
Why spoil the fun for someone who thinks playing Blood God Worshippers or french Questknights is the epitome of having fun with Blood Bowl?

There are many reasons why this should be considered. The biggest and best is still the one I wroteabout a long time ago.

I want the game to evolve and for us to have new things which affect the meta.

Now, I'm cautious, but cautiously optimistic. These teams have the stamp of GW approval and a lot of playtesting. They are also designed to be largely balanced, while many of the fumbbl teams are not. As for the unofficial teams on the ap, the less said, the better; at least for now.

nazgob wrote: These teams have the stamp of GW approval and a lot of playtesting.

They have GW approval? By that do you mean "Can we add this race to our computer game?" "Sure, if you want, we don't really care that much." "Can we add this race to our computer game?" "No, as it's not a supported race in the Warhammer world." I'm sure if they asked "Hi, can we add Khorne to your the rulebook?" They would have been told to French Connection U.K off.

And as for play testing, how hard is it to make slightly below par, but fun to play roster? I can answer that, not very hard at all with experience and a creative mind.

Hasn't GW placated this issue somewhat by releasing to unofficial rosters that are Khorne and Bret esque? Nobles and some such. In which case wouldn't it be better to wait and see if these don't in fact make it out of the experimental stage?

I hope GW makes the experimental teams official!

So, i think there would be some extreme balance issues. I have heard tales of teams with 4 rostered guard and 2 ogres.

Another team with 4 rostered bombardiers that have pass and ag3...

By GW approval, i meant that they have had the nod in some way. None of the others have, unless you talk about the experimental ones. Obviously those are problematic for other reasons.

Regash wrote:I really don't care as I am neither a NAF member nor do I attend any tournaments.

And this is why I would prefer people use the NAF forum. I'm only going to reply there in future, as the duplicate posts are bonkers. NAF members, please post in the NAF forum.

sann0638 wrote:

Regash wrote:I really don't care as I am neither a NAF member nor do I attend any tournaments.

And this is why I would prefer people use the NAF forum. I'm only going to reply there in future, as the duplicate posts are bonkers. NAF members, please post in the NAF forum.

The thing is..........and I do respect and understand how you would feel frustrated by non NAF members getting involved. Such is the influence of the NAF now that it affects other and possibly all other aspects of BB. Christer of FUMBBL has stated in the past that he'd follow the NAFs lead. Purplegoo is another (before Christer stated such) has speculated that NAF were foremost in possible changes in the hobby (before GW got back in the game).

So for good or for bad, the NAF has done such a good job supporting this hobby when few others would, it does affect those that are not NAF members. Yes, it has gone rather circular, but really there are only 2 arguments.

1. The rosters are ill conceived, bear no relation to previous rosters and would dilute the playing pool.
2. They're fun to play, popular for some and added an element of freshness.

Unfortunately there's not much room on the fence with this one. Khorne, Marmite and Bretonnian rosters...you love em or hate em.

I had tagged out, but I'm intrigued by that. Er, did I?

I mean, in the context of a pre-BB2016 world, I guess I agree with alleged me. Which is helpful.

I agree that any NAF decision here will have ripples across the world of 'in the loop' BB. I imagine FUMBBL would follow a NAF lead, on the map leagues aware of / affiliated to the NAF would be more likely to include these two rosters, etc. But we do now live in a BB2016 world. Off the map leagues (of which there are many) and how they interact with us when they find the map (the analogy becomes tortured, but you catch my drift) is one of the biggest issues with including these rosters. Splitting the player base or putting off potential hoardes of additional NAF coaches we want to sell the NAF concept to by including controversial / unofficial races is a pretty sizeable concern.

But anyway. I agree it gets cyclical and a NAF decision has impact on more than the NAF alone. Not that we / they can help that.

@Purplegoo it was meant if anything as a compliment. Basically you stated something, the community had their doubts and after some time Christer kind of confirmed your impressions.

The one none circular argument I could add (although it may seem rather elitist) is that more of the mature (seen it/done it) coaches are opposed to the roster, where as more of the newer looking for something fresh are pro the roster.

If it helps, I'm totally not opposed to the idea of adding Khorne, Bretonnian or any other roster in anyway.

1. I feel any new roster should not be developed with a computer clients inability to code new skills. There should be no physical restrictions or handcuffing in roster development. It results in a second rate roster.
2. Previous rosters (bar the rather unsettling Zon and Norse rosters) have followed the same conservative/no overdescribing mindset. Neither of these 2 rosters follow suit.
3. The Bretonnian roster had no influence from previous roster designers. I feel the designers of this roster do not understand the intention nor the conservative values that balance the game.
4. Both rosters fall short on realistic racial describing. Fun and entertaining they maybe, but so could be MA11 ST0 Dwarfs.

+1 to include Khorne and Brets. We've been playing with them in NY and they have been fine. I wish the NAF would post a full 6 Star Player list for Khorne .

Glamdryn wrote:I wish the NAF would post a full 6 Star Player list for Khorne .

According to the roster I know of:

• Helmut Wulf
• Max Spleenripper
• Wilhelm Chaney
• Lord Borak the Despoiler
• Grashnak Blackhoof
• Morg 'n' Thorg