Re: Pitch Invasion: A Blood Bowl Podcast
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:03 pm
In what sense?
Discuss Fantasy football-style board games - GW's Blood Bowl, Impact!'s Elfball, Privateer Press' Grind, Heresy's Deathball, etc. THIS IS NOT AN NFL FANTASY FOOTBALL SITE!
https://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/
https://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=39125
TlawsonTim wrote:I won't talk to you earlier points, but I feel you've been blinded by the light, both Kik and I did our research for that topic, quite a bit actually. So your comments are misguided and uneducated. Both Kik and are NAF members as we stated in episode 11.
We both feel the NAF has done an alright job but they have a lot of room to improve and a lot of things to explain. Have you looked at their financial report? It doesn't explain why there is an access of funds sitting in their accounts. As for the relationship with GW it's clear that there is zero relationship there, or the NAF would still be able to hive out block dice.
But we thank you for your feedback, we can only get better with both positive and negative feed back.
Cheers!
Tlawson Tim
Thank you both for responding to what, in retrospect, was itself a bit of a rant. My more structured critique would be primarily the following two points:Kikurasis wrote:Hutch,
We're very sorry to hear you feel that way. You'd likely be surprised to know that we've gotten a lot of positive feedback. In fact, way more positive than negative. But, we knew then negative would be there -- this is a very divisive topic.
We didn't attack the NAF. We simply brought up issues that needed to be talked about. Most relationships don't work unless things are talked out, and this is no different.
In the end, the NAF -- and, frankly, all of us players -- have no vested interested in this game we love. We play it, that's it. Only GW and Cyanide have any rights to the game (as the owner and licencee, respectively). Anyone else is delusional about it, so when I see players talk about how and what should be done, it gets me going. The NAF has as much to modify and put out new rules as I do. Or you do. They can house rule whatever they want, and members can decide to accept it, but what about those that don't then? In that case, the NAF would be dividing the player-base instead of bringing them together, which is -- I believe -- its goal.
But, I could be completely wrong. However, feedback received shows I likely am not.
The episode was about the "future of Blood Bowl". There is no way we can have that conversation without talking about the NAF.hutchinsfairy wrote: 1) In my opinion you presented a highly simplified caricature of the NAF and its actions. I feel it should be obvious that the NAF has a fairly narrow remit and an even narrower line to tread as far as representing its members in an environment over which they have extremely limited control. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the way the NAF is run or the decisions it has made, but criticising them without acknowledgement of the situation seems deeply unfair.
2) My biggest complaint, however, would be format. You are both paid up members of the NAF with access to any one of a dozen ways to contact them privately or publically, but instead you chose to air your grievances on a podcast without even the courtesy of asking for comment. This speaks volumes to me about your intent. If you had intended to enact change, initiate debate or provide feedback then why would you choose a broadcast medium which may not have even reached the people to whom you were supposedly trying to talk. It's the equivalent of trying to start a debate by scrawling obscene graffiti on a toilet wall. Worse, in fact, because at least then you would not be denying the other party the opportunity to respond in kind. Your actions are more consistent with attention seeking or self-aggrandisement at the expense of others. The fact that you have apparently since ducked any attempts to engage with the NAF over email or twitter reinforces the impression that you have no genuine interest in a debate.
Finally, just to preempt, responding to someone's attempt to engage you in conversation by ignoring them whilst preparing another one sided broadcast does not qualify as debate, not even nearly. It is also rude to invite someone onto your show without asking them directly, for what should be obvious reasons, so I hope you can manage to at least extend that courtesy. I wouldn't personally expect anyone to accept at this point though.
In my opinion, the NAF as less right to modify the rules of BB than any of GW's licencees. They may want to bring about house rules for their tournaments (and leagues, if that ever becomes a "thing"), but that would further fragment the already small player base into those that want pure rules and those that like the house rules. Again, you can see this from the hate for BB2 rule changes from the purists. However, some of those purists think having the NAF change the rules is a good thing. Whodathunk?sann0638 wrote: It would be great if we could have some focused discussion on that in this thread.
- Who would a new set of rules affect (i.e. where would they be used)?
- Who should be on the BBRC?
- How should the rule changes be decided?
I'm in a similar situation. Table top player from years ago just getting back into the game after finding my 3rd edition box in the attic. I think you make a good point about the potential future of the NAF. The trouble is that the NAF is comprised of a handful of volunteers who essentially spend their limited spare time trying to make sure that the game as it exists now has some centralised support.Nufflemancer wrote:I recently started listening to this podcast and found this NAF discussion to be interesting. I am an outsider; never been a NAF member, haven't gone to any tournaments, and am only just beginning to make the transition from digital Blood Bowl to tabletop. So I am ignorant of most of the important details and should probably keep silent. But I have a question that I'm not sure there is an answer to.
Why is the NAF still the NAF? With my limited research into the current state of Tabletop "Fantasy Football" it seems most of the tabletop Blood Bowl fans have adapted to life without Games Workshop. They buy their miniatures from unofficial 3rd party sources who, in many cases, have to rename teams to avoid copyright issues. Lots of people enjoy playing unofficial races in leagues with house rules. And some have even moved to other games like Elfball, Dreadball, etc. Why has the NAF, as a fan service organization, not adapted as well? It might have to change it's name but in theory the NAF could do what it does for Blood Bowl for all of Fantasy Football, expand its membership base, and help bring fans of this niche tabletop game genre together.
I'm only just beginning to get into this hobby. I haven't put paint on my brush yet let alone fielded a team. But it seems to me that the biggest mistake you can make as a fan-based community organization for a niche game is to be exclusionary. I realize from the players' perspective they want to keep their rankings system clear-cut and easy to understand. You wouldn't want multiple games/rule sets muddying the situation. But I see no reason why the NAF couldn't have separate categories for ranking teams.
I don't know. Maybe there is a simple answer to all of this and I am just ignorant of it. Sorry if that is the case.
I just listened to the follow-up NAF podcast and I have to agree with you Pete.HairyPete77 wrote:I wanted to post after the last episode and the comments that you made about the NAF. I'm not always pro-NAF myself but really do appreciate the work that they do and through NAF tournaments I have made some good friends and played some great games. Your comments struck me as ignorant and small-minded but I didn't think it worth my time to write...
...However, I've just listened to your follow up episode and your response to Sann's email and I'm fuming about your handling of the situation and lack of respect and common decency that you've shown. Rather than allow Mike and the NAF to openly discuss the issues, you childishly read out an email in which he corrects your factual errors and offers to come on and talk through the others. Your frequent giggles and *humorous* comments were ill-judged and served to confirm my original opinion.
I'm not going to list every error that you made or respond to all of the points, since the first item that you covered about the mandatory usage of GW or NAF dice is wrong, wrong, wrong. If some TOs want to do it then fine, but I've never had to do it and in the NAFC15 I played with and against many different dice. The NAF is a members organisation and if you don't like the way that the volunteers run it, then become more active and stand for election yourself. There was plenty of notice and communication for the recent League Director position. Yes, turnout was very low but that reflects on the membership and not the efforts put in by the candidates or the NAF Committee.
I wouldn't blame the NAF for not wanting to come on and speak to you now because based on this last episode I don't believe you would be receptive to what they have to say.
Pete
So even the Blood Bowl major here in Australia doesn’t stop you from using whatever dice you want, so long as you’re using dice that have symbols like the GW block dice and not regular d6’s.Official NAF Blocking Dice are preferred but custom Blocking Dice can be used if opponent agrees to their use. Home made dice, using d6’s as block dice or any dice modified or alterations in anyway are not allowed.