Proposal for New Rosters

[burgun824]

My goodness. Am I the only simpleton that wants LESS rosters.

This game is too complicated to try and calculate all of the variables as it is. Adding more rosters will just make it maddening.

And honestly, I have no argument on this past, "I don't like it because it's more work for me." Selfish. I know.

[Gaixo]

No, people often campaign for the elimination of teams. Pro/high elves, undead/necro/khemri, and the 3 "new" teams are the most frequent targets.

[harvestmouse]

In response to the current, largely negative, debate regarding Cyandide’s Brettonian and Khorne rosters I’d like to put forward an alternative argument. I think the NAF should be open to additional rosters and even actively encouraging and developing new rosters.

As far as I can see, there are a few common arguments against the NAF endorsing new rosters:
• That the Roster is broken
• That the roster is dull/boring/unimaginative
• That the NAF shouldn’t (or don’t have the authority) to make rules changes
• That it will splinter the player base


In summary, I can’t see why the NAF (carefully and deliberately) endorsing new rosters could be considered a bad thing. New rosters and options should help freshen the game up and bring new challenges to old coaches. FUMBBL has several additional rosters and, while I’m not suggesting a wholesale adoption of FUMBBL’s setup, it certainly hasn’t caused the BB world to implode either.

Ok, I'm on the negative side for them making these 2 rosters official. I'm actually very pro new rosters being added.

Firstly you don't think 'That the Roster is broken' isn't a good reason not to add it?! I can't think of any better reason for a team not to be added. Not that either of these (if it is plasmoid's Bretonnians) that are added are broken.

My argument against adding these teams is 3 fold.

1. NAF are influencing other areas of the game. This means right now without GW involvement they've acquired a job, they're not necessarily qualified to deal with. That being the evolution of a professionally designed board game.

2. Regarding the Khorne roster, it does not represent correctly the creatures it is trying to portray. This for me dilutes the immersion feel of the world we are trying to portray. Too much dilution will mean the fantasy universe will lose it's credibility. Ok, it's a small thing here, but don't make lines greyer.

3. Regarding the Bretonnian roster, I dislike the description. I believe on the whole and as Neoliminal described about over describing adding extra skills to make a roster interesting, but skills that a player of that race wouldn't normally get needs very good reasoning and shouldn't be done just to make it a fun playing roster. It again dilutes the fantasy universe. The problem I feel is made worse by the skill access which now falls under 2 and 3.

So none of these (ok number my 1 is a bit similar to your 3, but not exactly) to the reasons you gave. I'd be more than happy for Brets and Khorne (Khorne are tricky though) to become official. However they need more development and no creative handcuffing.

[spubbbba]

My goodness. Am I the only simpleton that wants LESS rosters.

This game is too complicated to try and calculate all of the variables as it is. Adding more rosters will just make it maddening.

And honestly, I have no argument on this past, "I don't like it because it's more work for me." Selfish. I know.

That's true, I'd much rather have 18 interesting, balanced and varied rosters than 30, half of which are bland (Bretonnians), don't do anything new (Khorne) or don't fit in the BB world at all (Apes).

[harvestmouse]

2 options to that which might/could work are:

1. Put races into 3 categories.

Category A: These races are 100% official. Any official tournament must allow these races.
Category B: These races are official but up to the organiser. He/She/They/It can decide whether to allow these races or not.
Category C: These races are not official in anyway. They should not be included in any official tournament, however are there for use if league groups wished to use them.

2 down points to these are:

1. Why pay a lot of money on a team that may not be allowed into tournaments.
2. Ranking rosters from 3 different groups.

The other option is to remove (certainly with Elves this works) different types of Elves and have one standard Elf team. However the options are much more varied.

As an example you could take one of 3 type of lineman as your linemen.

A: This is a standard Elf lineman with access to good armour 6 3 4 8 70k
B: This is a standard Elf lineman, however he does not have access to good armour 6 3 4 7 60k
C: This is an Elf lineman that uses a special light armour and has trained to be swift 7 3 4 7 70k

You could in fact add more

D: This is an Elf who has trained to be exceptionally strong and can wear exceptionally heavy armour 5 3 4 9 70k

Then after that they could have the different positionals. So a Dark Elf team could take 'C type' linemen, but couldn't take wardancers for example. A team with Wardancers or Elven Catchers would not be able to take 4 blitzer types.

[Vanguard]

Firstly you don't think 'That the Roster is broken' isn't a good reason not to add it?! I can't think of any better reason for a team not to be added. Not that either of these (if it is plasmoid's Bretonnians) that are added are broken.

No, not at all. I would be opposed to 'broken' rosters being added, although 'broken' is a very subjective term.
My argument was that the NAF could evaluate rosters through inclusion in tournaments where the TO was amenable and build up some statistical data to show whether a roster significantly under or over performed.

[lunchmoney]

2 options to that which might/could work are:

1. Put races into 3 categories.

Category A: These races are 100% official. Any official tournament must allow these races.
Category B: These races are official but up to the organiser. He/She/They/It can decide whether to allow these races or not.
Category C: These races are not official in anyway. They should not be included in any official tournament, however are there for use if league groups wished to use them.
armour 5 3 4 9 70k

The Epic: Armageddon tourney community did similiar. It was terrible.
The EA game has been fragmented for a very long time due to various groups producing rules updates and new army lists. The biggest group is Epic:UK, but they are not respected everywhere and if you go France, for example, you will be scorned for mentioning them as they have their own version of rules updates and army lists. Then there's NetEpic, another iteration of rules updates and army lists that is quite popular (some see NetEpic as a different game, yet another another argument).
That's just the top three and all these, plus more, can be viable at EA tourneys. It has created division.

I understand that BFG has suffered the same, as has Necromunda.

BB has survived because no one group has taken it upon itself to "update the rules", or add army lists/team/gang rosters. We have one pool of info, not many, and that is good.

Leave it alone.

[harvestmouse]

Firstly you don't think 'That the Roster is broken' isn't a good reason not to add it?! I can't think of any better reason for a team not to be added. Not that either of these (if it is plasmoid's Bretonnians) that are added are broken.

No, not at all. I would be opposed to 'broken' rosters being added, although 'broken' is a very subjective term.
My argument was that the NAF could evaluate rosters through inclusion in tournaments where the TO was amenable and build up some statistical data to show whether a roster significantly under or over performed.

Well broken is subjective without data. Hence the Khemri we now have and possibly Ogres and Undead as well.

With the Brets Cyanide will give us enough data on top of PBeM. However I'm unsure how the Brets before the present version could have been broken. ST3 AG2 AV7 lino team.....really?

Khornewise I think there's enough data there to say what we all thought. They're a below average team that is quirky.

I think a lot of the subjective opinions are biased or probably shouldn't be given a worldwide opinion maybe.

Being broken is the number 1 argument, in my opinion is doesn't apply to either of these 2 rosters. Certainly not Khorne I'm pretty sure.

I think NAF are probably being put in a boat they never intended to be in and then asked 'ok skipper, where next?' Not an easy position, I'm sure.

[dode74]

Khornewise I think there's enough data there to say what we all thought. They're a below average team that is quirky.

Exactly the intent. They score 43-47% win% to 95CI in both leagues and MM.

[PercyTheTroll]

We have one pool of info, not many, and that is good.

Leave it alone.

Except there isn't one pool of info. There's the NAF tournaments, there's FUMBBL and there's Cyanide, each with variations on which rosters are available.

The problem that the NAF has in terms of trying to effect any change is that it has no influence over Cyanide. FUMBBLE may choose to follow the NAFs lead but Cyanide almost certainly will just continue doing it's own thing, for better or worse. So should the NAF decide that it's only interested in TT players and ignore the fact that an enormous number of games are played online, or should it try to be all things to all people and risk falling between three stools? I honestly don't think there's a good answer there.

[harvestmouse]

Khornewise I think there's enough data there to say what we all thought. They're a below average team that is quirky.

Exactly the intent. They score 43-47% win% to 95CI in both leagues and MM.

Indeed; I'm not nor have ever intended to question the horne design team's ability to make such a roster.

Re Raveen: Christer (FUMBBL) has written that he will follow NAF in any decision they make. If he does, that also puts weight on other avenues to follow suit.

NAF's primary concern is table top competition. TT and Online perpetual have a lot of different concerns, mentality and player base. This worries me.

[Thespian]

I feel that the majority of future players of Blood Bowl will be introduced to the game via the non-traditional digital platforms such as Cyanide. You cannot discount their influence. I have met several coaches now who liked the Cyanide version enough that they took up the table top version. Including those new teams will help new players feel comfortable entering into the new area if the teams they are used to playing are reflected in the existing TT ruleset. If you don't, you run the risk of marginalizing them.

Currently, without a living rule book committee, NAF is the closest thing to an "authority" we have regarding rules and they should have the clout to implement "official" teams.

[dode74]

They can implement whatever they want to their own tournaments. As can anyone else.

[harvestmouse]

Well there are 3 'logistical' problems of where we are now.

1. As I mentioned before, it really does look like the NAF are being given a job they never intended to do.
2. I question the top brass of Cyanide; I.e. they don't have any idea what they were doing. Khorne as a theme for a new team was an idiotic idea. That coupled with the roster they intended is very worrying. It looks like they have taken a different policy with the Brets though.
3. We have a lot of very distinct and different gaming avenues now, and tying us altogether isn't easy. Particularly as the TV system very much suits resurrection and not perpetual.

NAF, FUMBBL, Cyanide, PBeM and I guess there's still a GW gaming element are all very very different.

[SunDevil]

That's true, I'd much rather have 18 interesting, balanced and varied rosters than 30, half of which are bland (Bretonnians), don't do anything new (Khorne) or don't fit in the BB world at all (Apes).

As the biggest Ape homer/apologist/fan out there, I would ask if the BB world, as you see it, is completely limited to it's Warhammer roots? If so, that's fine, I was just curious. But we (all of us) make up the world of BB much more now than Warhammer or GW does (in my opinion) and I certainly favor attempts to grow and develop that world. I've had some very talented and passionate BB fans and coaches send me background stories and fluff about the Apes that connect them to the existing BB world. We have Lizards from the jungles of Lustria, who is to say there are not Apes there as well?

It's all opinion, I know that. I just know that among all the talented BB coaches/fans out there, we have the potential for adding teams that are balanced (through lengthy and rigorous playtesting), interesting and completely immersed in the BB world we all create.

I would support the NAF overseeing a process where teams could apply for sanctioning. I have a TON of ideas on this subject (which should surprise no one) but the main points would be -

1. Only ONE team approved per year
2. Applicant rosters must show data for 1000 matches played against existing BB rosters (TT or online)
3. Match data must come from at least 5 sources (different leagues and tournaments, preferably all around the world)
4. Applicant rosters must have been played against the "original" 24 at least 25 teams each
5. Applicant rosters must include a detailed history connecting them to our BB world

Think of the excitement the community would enjoy every annual "Announcement Day" when the new roster was revealed!

I know this isn't everyone's preference and there are some very compelling reasons to stay at 24 rosters or even pare down the ones we have. Personally, I'd drop at least two rosters (one of the Elves, one of the Undeads) and tweak at least three others. But I do believe the game needs to breathe and grow albeit at a slow, carefully-controlled pace.

The NAF are best positioned to do this as they can be totally transparent, they have the infrastructure in place and have an ongoing mechanism for elections and adding outside involvement/consultants.

Obviously, my heart is with the Simyin (Apes) but they aren't even the first team I would nominate for approval.