Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

[Lychanthrope]

I love watching Darkson give himself a hernia when the possible NAF sanctioning of the Khorne roster comes up. It amuses me.

It doesn't amuse me, it makes me sad. If Cyanide had Slann and the NAF had Khorne, the world would be a happier place.

Like

[Rolex]

... I'm fine with the NAF staying with the CRP + the 3 teams that JJ emailed him that he was okay considering official. (which is the Icepelt rulebook that Cyanide is hosting). I think that is a good base for the NAF to stick to for now.
Tom

If that's good enough for Tom (who made the DoK) I must say it is good enough for me, too.

[Loki]

It's always an intresting question about how and when things should be done when thinking about change. I saw a great video yesterday which I think is worth watching. It takes about 12 mins, it's both amusing and thought provoking.

TED video: Smart failure for a fast-changing world, Eddie Obeng

[duckwing]

Like it or not (I don't like it) the cyanide version is the living version of the game.
I prefer to deal with it, then to ignore it. Matter of preference.

And let's say they change Dwarfs so they have Guard instead of Block, either due to incompetence or interference from GW (admittedly extreme example, I admit, but an example of what could happen), are the NAF going to blindly follow them?

And when they call the game finished, and it only has 23 of the 24 rosters? Is the NAF going to just drop a roster? What about any Stars that they decide not to put in? And does that mean cards will be banned from NAF tournaments, as they're not in the "living version"?

Very dangerous precedent, in my opinion.

The NAf didn't sanction the Khorne roster last time it was up for debate, even though Cyanide put it in with GW's blessing. So even though you present a valid argument here it has already been shown that we don't need to be afraid of NAF blindly following whatever Cyanide does just because they later might sanction some version of the Khorne roster.

[duckwing]

... I'm fine with the NAF staying with the CRP + the 3 teams that JJ emailed him that he was okay considering official. (which is the Icepelt rulebook that Cyanide is hosting). I think that is a good base for the NAF to stick to for now.
Tom

If that's good enough for Tom (who made the DoK) I must say it is good enough for me, too.

Not me. If he had his way I would lose one of my favorite teams: Khemri

[duckwing]

I love watching Darkson give himself a hernia when the possible NAF sanctioning of the Khorne roster comes up. It amuses me.

It doesn't amuse me, it makes me sad. If Cyanide had Slann and the NAF had Khorne, the world would be a happier place.

+1

[Vanguard]

Like it or not (I don't like it) the cyanide version is the living version of the game.
I prefer to deal with it, then to ignore it. Matter of preference.

And let's say they change Dwarfs so they have Guard instead of Block, either due to incompetence or interference from GW (admittedly extreme example, I admit, but an example of what could happen), are the NAF going to blindly follow them?

And when they call the game finished, and it only has 23 of the 24 rosters? Is the NAF going to just drop a roster? What about any Stars that they decide not to put in? And does that mean cards will be banned from NAF tournaments, as they're not in the "living version"?

Very dangerous precedent, in my opinion.

IF DoK were to be NAF approved, then the precedent being set is that any changes from the CRP introduced by Cyanide will not be NAF approved for at least two years until the NAF have a suitable body of evidence to base the decision on and are happy that it's not a game breaking alteration. That's not a bad precedent.

And where has the playtesting been recorded? The Cyanide game? Hardly a good exmaple. A team that relies on Frenzy (and it's crowd-surfing ability) on a tool where the game can crash if you crowd-surf someone on a chainpush (for example). If I was playing Quorn (I'm not, as they didn't make it worth my while to pay for CE) I'd be loathe to do chain-surfs, hence it's not giving a true reflection of their game play.

Ok, I can accept that Cyanide data could be unreliable for several reasons. However, it's probably still good enough to be indicative of DoK performance. To avoid concerns around Cyanide data, and to set a good precedent of measured change, I'd suggest that DoK were given 'Provisional' NAF status allowing Tournaments the option of including them. Another year or two of that and we'd have some NAF data that should be reliable enough to make further decisions on.

And who has the final say on the missing Stars? And tweaks? Playing without the chance of change isn't playtesting.

Well, the NAF I guess. I'm sure they can find some people willing to put their minds to it and consult the public. I know there's at least a few leagues who have stars for DoK.

The team would look different if not for the handcuffs ... I definitely agree with that.

At this risk of encouraging mire factions on this issue, I'd be very curious to see how the team would have changed. Also, what were the handcuffs in question, if you're able to share?

[GalakStarscraper]

Not me. If he had his way I would lose one of my favorite teams: Khemri

Nah ... I'm over it. All 24 teams are happy in my world.

[Pakulkan]

I see. I largely agree with that sentiment.

The reason they were reconsidered, though, is that by this point they have been playtested. Probably on a larger scale than the last 3 teams were.

Coming back to this point to give you my two cents.

As some time ago I stated, I am actually starting to play Battlefleet Gothic. For a BloodBowler is amazing how fragmented the community is. I found several rules versions, addendums, and house rules widely used. I think it is similar in Mordheim and Necromunda as well.

From my point of view, what happened to Bloodbowl (BBRC and GW sanction for some extra years compared with other Speacialist Games) give us a unique perspective of a potential future for Bloodbowl. PC game is not helping in to maintain community consensus, but would be a good opportunity (crisis-catarsis) to move forward.

My main concern is that having the tools to keep community consensus (the NAF) if we not use them this opportunity will pass and we will find ourselves in precisely the same situation that other Specialist Games faced.

I guess most of the current BB players would accept a new NAF-sancioned BBRC just to have something near an official position in the most controversial issues (Rules pack, Team Rosters, Star Players).

Nowadays we are noting that some leagues include Khorne, some others not, and NAF reluctancy to take care of BB community is something in contradiction with its main purpose.

By the way, GW and their IP would provide an absolute ruling scenario for 100% community. But if NAF includes 60% worldwide players and they follow a single ruleset, it would eventually unite Bloodbowl community more than a indefinite reluctancy.

Topics like this one are good examples that there is a major checkpoint in future BB development, a one that if it is not faced on time, would not only dimiss Bloodbowl as a game, but NAF as organization.

[sann0638]

Nowadays we are noting that some leagues include Khorne, some others not, and NAF reluctancy to take care of BB community is something in contradiction with its main purpose.

I don't think the first statement (some leagues using Khorne) leads to the second (NAF not taking care of the BB community).

[Pakulkan]

Nowadays we are noting that some leagues/tournaments include Khorne, that some players want to use Khorne teams and some others not, and NAF reluctancy to take care of BB community is something in contradiction with its main purpose.

I don't think the first statement (some leagues using Khorne) leads to the second (NAF not taking care of the BB community).

You're right. I re-wrote the sentence.

My message is that Khorne is an example of what could happen and spread in the future, and that NAF has a unique and uncontested situation to take care of the highest % of players and handle the "official" NAF ruling. At least in Spain, even non-NAF tournaments/leagues follow what is useg in the NAF events.

Don't take this as an attack. I am just afraid that if we just pretend to stay in the last GW official version of the ruleset, community would be certainly fragmented in some years. This sentence is based in what happened in 100% of the other Specialist Games. To be honest, the NAF is an unknown variable, I admit that mere NAF presence would keep LRB6.0 stable and BB community with minor divergences. But also think is worthy to consider present situation (Non GW-sanctioning, BBRC disbanded, Cyanide updating PC game at their will...) as a source of variability in the system. How it would end (community grouped in LRB6.0 and NAF events; or appareance of several alternative rulesets) is certainly the key point and no one knows the answer.

As said, this is just my personal concern. And this is added to a feeling that most of NAF players (at least the ones I've talked here in Spain) really perceive a new, NAF-sanctioned BBRC as a logical, desirable and useful next step in BB development.

[Rolex]

As said, this is just my personal concern. And this is added to a feeling that most of NAF players (at least the ones I've talked here in Spain) really perceive a new, NAF-sanctioned BBRC as a logical, desirable and useful next step in BB development.

You are forgetting "illegal".
Naf doesn't own the property of BB.

The best they could do is publish a set of house rules.

[RoterSternHochdahl]

As said, this is just my personal concern. And this is added to a feeling that most of NAF players (at least the ones I've talked here in Spain) really perceive a new, NAF-sanctioned BBRC as a logical, desirable and useful next step in BB development.

You are forgetting "illegal".
Naf doesn't own the property of BB.

The best they could do is publish a set of house rules.

Is it illegal to play your game the way you want to? Is it illegal to write down how you do it?

Your use of the word "illegal" mirrors GW's policy with everything they have done over years. They shout "illegal" and everybody backs off while in fact they have very little power outside the field of copyrights and trademarks, even less in view of a non-profit background.

[Rolex]

Is it illegal to play your game the way you want to? Is it illegal to write down how you do it?

No this is not. But writing a new rulebook is another matter.

Your use of the word "illegal" mirrors GW's policy with everything they have done over years. They shout "illegal" and everybody backs off while in fact they have very little power outside the field of copyrights and trademarks, even less in view of a non-profit background.

My use of the word illegal mirrors the view of lawyers, since I am one.
Publishing (even on line) a new modified RB, would give the perfect excuse to GW to shut the Naf down.
Doing something like that would be a suicidal move.
The legal expenses alone would be enough to kill the Naf.

[plasmoid]

As an aside:
IMO, the 'what if Cyanide made a Space Marine roster' argument is such a horrible strawman.

For all their incompetence, we have no indication that they are insane.
Nor do we have any reason to assume that the NAF will suddenly lose the ability to make a sound case-by-case judgement.

Cheers
Martin