NAF response to possible BB2 rule changes

sann0638 · Post by **sann0638** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:47 pm

frogboy wrote: Do Cyanide even produce a rule book?

No. Which is a slight problem.

Wulfyn · Post by **Wulfyn** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:01 pm

Darkson wrote:
Wulfyn wrote:
Darkson wrote:GW did not go to court fof game mechanics, I never said they did
Right so not game rules? So what exactly is your point here? It still boils down to how much the community values a single ruleset.
You were the one that claimed that was the reason they were given the license - I corrected you. That you can't even remember why you're arguing just shows you're arguing for arguments sake.

It is the reason that they were given the licence. Why else would they want to have the Chaos League ownership? They could not stop Cyanide so they did the next best thing. That's why they have the closest thing to an official rule set. I know you don't like to hear it because of your investment with the BBRC, but if you continue to bury your head in the sand then things will move on without you.

Cyanide will update the rules with or without you. And now you are in the same position GW was in. Either you engage with them to create a common ruleset for the good of the entire community that is the best it can be, or you let them do their thing happy that in a couple of years time there will be 2 BB rulesets.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:12 pm

I don't have any investment in the BBRC, I think you have me confused with someone else.
And they couldn't stop Chaos League I agree (and I never said they could) but they could and would have had it pulled from the shelves whilst Cyanide removed and replaced all the IP they had lifted, which, on top of the fine, may have meant Cyanide not being able to rerelease it.

Chris · Post by **Chris** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:41 pm

I think Mike has a point. Cyanide want popular changes. They do seem to erratically reach out. Their ageing rule is sensible in the context of their perpetual open MM league.

I would love it if the NAF could reach out to Cyanide. Find out what they want.

Offer them free brainpower, analysis and testing to move the rule set forward. FUMBL can test rules before BB2 implements them. I suspect that would be to make teams a better sales proposition and stop the domination of certain teams in their common open and long term league formats. But who knows before we ask?

The rest of the offer would be to advertise Cyanide in NAF events for free (the World Cup will get some coverage, more if people drive PR on it, why not offer plenty of mentions of BB2 to cyanide?) and to provide a new user friendly rulebook to them to teach and rule the game. Use some of the NAF billions to pay Galak to write it up.

In return we get some sensible changes and a unified blood bowl scene.

Vanguard · Post by **Vanguard** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:00 pm

sann0638 wrote:
frogboy wrote: Do Cyanide even produce a rule book?
No. Which is a slight problem.

I suspect that will have to change with BB2 unless they're happy publishing a rule book that (intentionally) doesn't match their game. Of course, you never know...

sann0638 · Post by **sann0638** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:00 am

Chris, the reaching out from our end is happening. Long gap to reach across though!

Chris · Post by **Chris** » Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:41 am

Thanks Sann. Does it include an offer of what the NAF can offer them though? (All I can think of is advertising, testing, now rulebook etc in return for a balanced game.) I wouldn't rely on cyanide to think think up what the relationship should be!

sann0638 · Post by **sann0638** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 8:49 pm

Chris wrote:Thanks Sann. Does it include an offer of what the NAF can offer them though? (All I can think of is advertising, testing, now rulebook etc in return for a balanced game.) I wouldn't rely on cyanide to think think up what the relationship should be!

Yes indeedy.

Darkson · Post by **Darkson** » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:28 pm

Vanguard wrote:I suspect that will have to change with BB2 unless they're happy publishing a rule book that (intentionally) doesn't match their game. Of course, you never know...

Not as much as suspected this time, but they currently host a rulebook that doesn't match their game, so not sure they will be bothered.

swilhelm73 · Post by **swilhelm73** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:21 pm

A new gameplay video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oghspsu6hw4

It looks quite likely that they implemented Plasmoid's ruleset in toto;

http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm

harvestmouse · Post by **harvestmouse** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:54 pm

Why do you say that? What part of the video looks like they're using NTBB, I missed it! I saw the mino didn't have leader, which suggests to me they aren't using NTBB.

Wulfyn · Post by **Wulfyn** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:01 pm

harvestmouse wrote:Why do you say that? What part of the video looks like they're using NTBB, I missed it! I saw the mino didn't have leader, which suggests to me they aren't using NTBB.

I think it was part 10 with the Ogre down to 130k and the human catcher at AV8. Around 1:04.

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:37 pm

For whatever it's worth - those changes to the human team are the only roster changes in the NTBB rules that are actually on the CRP+ list. So they might be inspired by CRP+ rather than NTBB.
Cheers
Martin

harvestmouse · Post by **harvestmouse** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 1:50 am

Wulfyn wrote:
harvestmouse wrote:Why do you say that? What part of the video looks like they're using NTBB, I missed it! I saw the mino didn't have leader, which suggests to me they aren't using NTBB.
I think it was part 10 with the Ogre down to 130k and the human catcher at AV8. Around 1:04.

Ahhhh we already knew that......so that wasn't a brand new video and the one circulating for a few weeks now? I thought I recognised it!

straume · Post by **straume** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:29 pm

sann0638 wrote:
Chris wrote:Thanks Sann. Does it include an offer of what the NAF can offer them though? (All I can think of is advertising, testing, now rulebook etc in return for a balanced game.) I wouldn't rely on cyanide to think think up what the relationship should be!
Yes indeedy.

This interesting bit really didn`t invoke much questions. Any news on the dialogue?

Talk Fantasy Football