Cyanide... a new card system?

[Wifflebat]

Well, and now it'll be interesting to see how a manufacturer making minis for a Khorne team (possibly) affects the whole dynamic. I'd like to see a unified "official" set of rules that the entire Blood Bowl community can agree on, and if enough people want to play Brettonians or Khorne on their tabletop, they're going to do so, especially if the minis are available.

As a newly-returned member of the community, and one who's never paid any attention to the NAF (but would be happy to now), I'd be happy to see them become a dominant force in the game, but they're going to need more than just tournaments to do that, and thinking about the future of the rules is obviously an important part of it.

[Darkson]

Don't know about now, but previously independents making miniatures for things GW didn't/hadn't (some of the Stars) nearly got said things removed from the rules, but that was when GW still nominally sold BB figures. It's possible now they don't they'd turn a blind eye.

[spubbbba]

Until recently the public face of the NAF has been that of an arrogant closed shop with its head firmly up its own arse. I was obliged to become a member to attend a TT tournament in my own town. It seems to many outside the organization to function like a protection racket, enforcing membership in order to attend tournaments. It also seems to cast itself as the guardian of Blood Bowl while simultaneously refusing to take the Cyanide version seriously and look down its nose on people who play primarily online as second class citizens.

The blame for this attitude is not solely the NAF's. It is a pretty accurate description of the prevailing culture here at TFF too. Fair enough, the many iterations of BB1 were far from perfect. I can see their point.

I have to say that before Cyanide's version came along this was quite often the situation between NAF/TFF and FUMBBL coaches. It largely went away as the 2 older siblings ceased their squabbling to turn on the new arrival.

However the (perhaps unfortunate) truth is that Blood Bowl is bigger than the NAF now, which is clearly struggling to see outside its tournament circuit box. The NAF has an opportunity to redefine itself as a union representing all players, lobbying license holders on behalf of the entire player base. And it looks like that lobbying needs to start just about around now.

I appreciate that all sounds very negative regarding a volunteer run organisation, and I'm sure NAF execs past and present have done/will do their best. But doing their best is now going to have to encompass engaging with the new online implementations and ceasing to dismiss them as misguided or impure, since they almost certainly account for the majority of Blood Bowl games played in any given week.

I hope the NAF takes the opportunity to influence Cyanide's implementation of the rules, rather than choose to carp from the sidelines, because what I *do* give a shit about is the game of Blood Bowl in both its TT and online (Cyanide and fumbbl) forms. And I'd like those to continue to use the *same rules*.

The accusation of the NAF carping from the sidelines could also be directed at us mainly online coaches regarding the NAF. The vast majority of members did not vote in the elections or even pay any attention to them and I'm sure a lot of mainly online coaches were members. I tried to read through the Q&A's when the election was on but it did seem to be quite incestuous.

But maybe if the online coaches made more of an effort to engage the NAF by raising issues, asking questions or even running for leadership roles we could change that.

The arrival of the Khorne and Brettonian rosters seem to suggest Cyanide are as far as GW are concerned, the new BBRC. The NAF needs a seat at that table if they are to remain relevant. And the player base would finally have a reason to pay subs other than because they *have to* or because they want the trinkets.

The main concern about both the khrone and brettonian rosters is like the real time mode and other options they added, they were things that were not in high demand and came at the cost of things we did want. GW said no to Slann but we never got pact or half the stars. And now we're back to 8 teams with BB2, one of which we know nothing about but I'm not filled with hope based on every brett roster I've seen and the khorne team.

[MattDakka]

How exactly can inclusion in a licensed game be characterised as not official?

Off the top of my head (as I played them), the Sisters of Battle had an Avenging Angel and a Lightning fighter (plane), neither of which were in 40K (up to the time I stopped playing, I think they can take the Lightning now).

In the Dawn of War Soulstorm game SoB could take Lightning Fighter (Imperial Navy Aircraft) and the Living Saint (your "Avenging Angel").
In the WH40K tabletop game they can use the Avenger Strike Fighter and the Arvus Lighter (both of them Imperial Navy).

[Waldorf28]

But maybe if the online coaches made more of an effort to engage the NAF by raising issues, asking questions or even running for leadership roles we could change that.

Absolutely, I can see how it cuts both ways.

[Darkson]

In the Dawn of War Soulstorm game SoB could take Lightning Fighter and the Living Saint (your "Avenging Angel").

Living Saint and Avenging Angel were different units.

[MattDakka]

In the Dawn of War Soulstorm game SoB could take Lightning Fighter and the Living Saint (your "Avenging Angel").

Living Saint and Avenging Angel were different units.

Ah yes, you are referring to the spirits of the fallen SoB, summoned by the Canoness, they were many, not just one Avenging Angel .

[Fassbinder75]

I wouldn't regard the Dawn of War/40k and Cyanide/TT comparison as relevant. Dawn of War games are not 40k, computerised, where as Cyanide's online offering of Blood Bowl is effectively identical. All the rules for Khorne or the forthcoming Bretonnians are 100% compatible with tabletop and FUMBBL, all their mechanics are (or will be) presented transparently, unlike Dawn of War which would require significant homebrewing.

Just wondering, do UK TT leagues allow coaches non-official teams like the Apes and Khorne - is it widespread? They are available, but not popular in most Australasian leagues.

[sann0638]

Sometimes I wish the mods/admins would change a thread title after 6 pages or so.

[Darkson]

I wouldn't regard the Dawn of War/40k and Cyanide/TT comparison as relevant.

Seeing as the comment was "How exactly can inclusion in a licensed game be characterised as not official?" then it's completely relevant.

Can't speak for other TT leagues but it's CRP+3 for us only. We don't even allow house-ruled rosters into our house-ruled Chaos league.

[VoodooMike]

The accusation of the NAF carping from the sidelines could also be directed at us mainly online coaches regarding the NAF. The vast majority of members did not vote in the elections or even pay any attention to them and I'm sure a lot of mainly online coaches were members

Well, members of NAF, meaning people who paid for a membership... which few people for whom the organization has yet to be relevant (such as online players) would ever bother to do. I think the onus is on the NAF to be relevant to more people before those people decide to take part in it, rather than the other way around.

The main concern about both the khrone and brettonian rosters is like the real time mode and other options they added, they were things that were not in high demand and came at the cost of things we did want. GW said no to Slann but we never got pact or half the stars. And now we're back to 8 teams with BB2, one of which we know nothing about but I'm not filled with hope based on every brett roster I've seen and the khorne team.

Well, even when it was GW making changes, their changes weren't all about what the proverbial "we" wanted. Again, it comes down to what people do or don't decide to use in their own tabletop leagues... regardless of what changes Cyanide makes, or what stance NAF takes on those changes, etc. NAF can control the rules for NAF tournaments, but with GW no longer publishing the game there's going to be a lot of influence both on and offline with the major producer of any official, or at least widely publicized, BB material. What "we" want may matter less and less with time.

I wouldn't regard the Dawn of War/40k and Cyanide/TT comparison as relevant. Dawn of War games are not 40k, computerised, where as Cyanide's online offering of Blood Bowl is effectively identical. All the rules for Khorne or the forthcoming Bretonnians are 100% compatible with tabletop and FUMBBL, all their mechanics are (or will be) presented transparently, unlike Dawn of War which would require significant homebrewing.

I am in complete agreement. DOW was not based on the 40k rules, just on the 40k universe... plus 40k is still quite actively produced by GW. Likewise we don't see anyone adjusting their 40k TT play to include things from DOW, but we've already seen people playing TT using the Khorne roster.

[juck101]

The entire point of making a long term game that plays without futher tweaks was to have a system that did not need changing. Im really happy to play all systems and embrace all rules, but really we don't need anything new in my opionion.

Sadly one or two aspects of LRB5 and CRP6 would be better with a change because they were ingored or not play tested enough (claw stack and bank) but overall I happy to see more of the same great game we all play. But that is nit picking and 99.9% of the system is awesome.

[juck101]

What will make things interesting is if Cyanide publish a GW and Jervis endorsed LRB7 with the game, which is wholly possible.

I hate to say it, but really the fumbbl community were not behind LRB 5 (Vault) ideas and they never playtested the work. Waldorfs idea wont work even if it happens. Essentially no playtesting came from that community and maybe divided tabletop from computer players forever.

I think we are very far down the line which has siloed communities. I would almost be ready to conseede that no common ground will be found again, but I would like to see sense if most players realised the game may benefit from more joined up thinking. I doubt a unified system would be adopted by all, so really we might as well embrace the differences. In fact I cant think of many other people that play all three systems, which kinda tells me more about the future direction. (I do and can think of very few others)

LRB 7 is something I would be keen to work on. However stepping back I think is harder now than it was before. (feel free to post data that disproves this but I think even the trolls will struggle to prove me wrong).

Future is split dudes. Shame actaully as we might all need to stick together if we want to be posting about this game in another 20 years

[Darkson]

Just to note, Fumbbl didn't playtest LRB5 mainly because they couldn't, not having a tool that ran those rules.

[juck101]

No darkson that is not the entire truth. We all speculated and suggested ideas which were play tested. These discussions had almost no voice from fumbbl players. Indead they did not have the lrb vault coded but could of given comment. You know this. We typically played a few games and must have posted about every idea before during and after. Every community could of had input and I am arguing some did not.

I assume most simply did not care and many were hostile to change. I would argue the forgotten past was already a step in the direction we now find ourselves in. Not a lot has changed really