Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

[plasmoid]

Thanks Sann

[Lycos]

Anyway - back to the subject of the thread:
It's been quite a while now.
Any news on the subject?

Cheers
Martin

Hi Martin,
Fair point, updates are useful, we understand. There are some factors we need to clarify with GW and Cyanide before we can state anything official either way and to a very large extent, we are at the mercy of when they reply to us.

We have talked on email and skype a lot, but this is not an significant matter, we need to get our facts right and clear to make informed decisions. It is by no means forgotten or ignored - hey - this was all quiet until I raised it on our NAF agendas as I felt it should be revisited.

Dave

[plasmoid]

Hi Dave/Lycos,
nothing but respect for the work done
I just saw it in the NAF minutes several months ago, so I was getting curious.
Cheers
Martin

[sann0638]

Dave - do you mean insignificant?

We have talked on email and skype a lot, but this is not an significant matter, we need to get our facts right and clear to make informed decisions. It is by no means forgotten or ignored - hey - this was all quiet until I raised it on our NAF agendas as I felt it should be revisited.

Dave

[straume]

My personal take is that I would allow unofficial races in tournaments - from a short list which would include any races that Cyanide include in their games, plus others if they are very widely played. These would get a NAF ranking, but tournaments would not have to include them if they didn't want to, and if this were stated in the tournament pack then people would know well in advance.

Just found this thread and I think the above sounds like an excellent way to go.

Clearly someone feels strongly about a wrongness in the fluff with Khorne and that is of course fair enough.

My take:

- Team looks distinctive and interesting and adds something
- I would be very surprised if the team is overpowered
- Having an open door from the TTers to the PC-players seems wise

[Lychanthrope]

Dave - do you mean insignificant?

We have talked on email and skype a lot, but this is not an significant matter, we need to get our facts right and clear to make informed decisions. It is by no means forgotten or ignored - hey - this was all quiet until I raised it on our NAF agendas as I felt it should be revisited.

Dave

Given his choice of articles, an instead of a, and the tone/choice of words (need to get facts straight, informed decisions) I would, and did think he meant insignificant.

[harvestmouse]

I really don't think the NAF should sanction the list for a multiple of reasons.

1. Khorne cried out for a special neg-trait, which was something they (Cyanide) were unwilling to code. On TT you don't need special coding, so could quite easily do a more authentic/better roster.

2. Player describing. Khorne player descriptions are way out there. A lot of it just doesn't make any sense to me. In the past bar a few exceptions there's been a definite unwritten code to describing players to make them believable. With the Khorne list this was thrown out of the window. I really feel the OP in all his work just doesn't get this point.

3. It was a half assed job, and that's well known. There were so many stipulations on what they (the team designers) had to and could not do, this was always a 'well this is the best we can do under the circumstances' roster.

4. The NAF seems to be playing a more and more prominent roll in the world of BB. As it is the NAF is biased towards TT competition play, and the majority of the players are from a certain mould. There's no problem with this of course, however I think it's your responsibility to try and maintain the feel of the game and act as quality control (which I feel you have done very well so far on this issue).

I'm definitely for more rosters; however not one that was so critically maligned as this one. Khorne was an extremely tough roster to take on, a crazy choice as your first new roster and what you got was fun but just not Khorne.

Yay to fun rosters, but they must be authentic and in character.

[Fassbinder75]

I really don't think the NAF should sanction the list for a multiple of reasons.

1. Khorne cried out for a special neg-trait, which was something they (Cyanide) were unwilling to code. On TT you don't need special coding, so could quite easily do a more authentic/better roster.

So a reason not sanction is because they don't have an un-named nega-trait, because you think that is thematic. Right.

2. Player describing. Khorne player descriptions are way out there. A lot of it just doesn't make any sense to me. In the past bar a few exceptions there's been a definite unwritten code to describing players to make them believable. With the Khorne list this was thrown out of the window. I really feel the OP in all his work just doesn't get this point.

This is a better reason, if only because you're judging the roster and what it is and not what it isn't. Even, so - write a new description. Theme the players the way that matches the stat line. It is a hobby game after all.

3. It was a half assed job, and that's well known. There were so many stipulations on what they (the team designers) had to and could not do, this was always a 'well this is the best we can do under the circumstances' roster.

Again, lets judge the roster on what it is. I'd almost be willing to lay money down that you've never played them.

4. The NAF seems to be playing a more and more prominent roll in the world of BB. As it is the NAF is biased towards TT competition play, and the majority of the players are from a certain mould. There's no problem with this of course, however I think it's your responsibility to try and maintain the feel of the game and act as quality control (which I feel you have done very well so far on this issue).

LOL. The NAF hasn't been setting the world alight lately. Less tournament games are being played, the relationship with GW severed. The FUMBBL foray was a success by the sound of it, so not all bad.

I'm definitely for more rosters; however not one that was so critically maligned as this one. Khorne was an extremely tough roster to take on, a crazy choice as your first new roster and what you got was fun but just not Khorne.

Yay to fun rosters, but they must be authentic and in character.

What is 'authentic' and 'in character'? Blood Bowl's fluff is so screwed up nobody can make any of these assertions. Please, judge the roster for what it is.

[harvestmouse]

We're not going to agree on any points, that's pretty clear.

I have no problem with the roster's composition, it is indeed a fun roster. It just isn't described correctly and could never have been.

I'm pretty sure a Dwarf roster with ma8 av4 Dwarfs could be fun, but they ain't Dwarfs.

Designing rosters that aren't broken isn't difficult. They played it too safe with this one by not giving the linos S access, which if any roster should have S access it should be Khorne. Khorne was a bad choice to take on.

The basics are there, they just need to be let off the leash.

[sann0638]

There are various other positions that are a bit odd, I think - DE and Norse Runners, for example.

I just don't see the harm in including it (bar the slippery slope thing).

Re NAF games, I've attached a pic. Not exactly terminal decline.

[harvestmouse]

Well you guys are pretty much deciding the future of the game now. So if you don't see the integrity problem, that's pretty worrying. We chose this game for the depth of the fantasy universe. This roster damages this severely. I think a lot of players that say 'disliking the roster for fluff reasons is ridiculous' really don't see the repercussions of adding rosters like this.

Ok, this on it's own doesn't kill the game, however how much water do you add to a pint until the punters cry 'this ain't beer'? For me personally, it's not very much.

[sann0638]

Luckily, I have no power

[Fassbinder75]

We're not going to agree on any points, that's pretty clear.

I have no problem with the roster's composition, it is indeed a fun roster. It just isn't described correctly and could never have been.

I'm pretty sure a Dwarf roster with ma8 av4 Dwarfs could be fun, but they ain't Dwarfs.

Designing rosters that aren't broken isn't difficult. They played it too safe with this one by not giving the linos S access, which if any roster should have S access it should be Khorne. Khorne was a bad choice to take on.

The basics are there, they just need to be let off the leash.

Having Linemen with P instead of S access is not the same as MA8 Dwarves. Don't look too closely at the existing rosters because there's plenty worse out there already in terms of stat consistency across races.

If you can somehow shoehorn yourself into a 'manifesto' where there's internal consistency across all races from a mechanical and fluff perspective - then I would be extremely impressed. I'm happy to compromise to a greater degree.

[Fassbinder75]

Well you guys are pretty much deciding the future of the game now. So if you don't see the integrity problem, that's pretty worrying. We chose this game for the depth of the fantasy universe. This roster damages this severely. I think a lot of players that say 'disliking the roster for fluff reasons is ridiculous' really don't see the repercussions of adding rosters like this.

Ok, this on it's own doesn't kill the game, however how much water do you add to a pint until the punters cry 'this ain't beer'? For me personally, it's not very much.

You're asserting an awful lot there, all of it (beyond yourself) unprovable or wrong. If there's an integrity problem because the Khorne team doesn't have blanket S access and NAF will consider it's tournament legality and thus Blood Bowl will be severely damaged - then I think that's a bit overblown.

A lot of conservative types like to spout about the 'slippery slope' forgetting that people with brains can tell an MA8 dwarf from a lineman with P access. The 'Khorne today, Ultramarines tomorrow' argument is just rubbish. Was there an exodus of Cyanide players to FUMBBL at the onset of Chaos Edition - who can tell, but by the lack of reaction I'd say probably not.

People play the game for more reasons than the depth of the fantasy universe. If someone has fun with this roster and perhaps enjoys converting and painting it and wants to play it at a tournament - then I should have a really, really good reason not to allow that.

[harvestmouse]

Lol I'm asserting a lot? You took every point I made and made your own assertion. There's a lot of blanket statements about diluting the credibility being rubbish. I'm not interested in getting into arguments with guys that dislike my argument. the point was made, I made a counter argument, you've already made yours.

My point is, this roster was made for an online client. TT isn't hampered by client problems and that the NAF (if they wish) could make a fun roster and a more credible roster if they wished. I'd be more than happy add my input if they wished. So why go with the Cyanide one? There are enough people saying the same thing as me, I'm not alone with disliking what they did here, move on.