Talk Fantasy Football

Darkson wrote:

Milo wrote:I do think that there could be value in having a BBRC, if only to finally sign off on the extra three teams

They were signed off by the last BBRC, before it was dissolved.

Ah, that's true, they just didn't get the GW stamp of approval because there were no minis. However, if the NAF were to form a new BBRC, for instance, they are no longer wholly beholden to GW, and there are certainly minis available for these races now -- an extra veneer of approval could probably be granted to them.

Certainly it would be nice to have an official NAF version of the rulebook which included the full 24 teams. Possibly it could even list as an appendix the Cyanide only teams and rules divergences in BB2. Typical Tournament structures would be another possible section / appendix.

It would be good to have a document that the whole community could refer to even if they're picking and choosing different sections of it (a bit like NEC contracts if anyone gets that reference).

Raveen wrote:Certainly it would be nice to have an official NAF version of the rulebook which included the full 24 teams. Possibly it could even list as an appendix the Cyanide only teams and rules divergences in BB2. Typical Tournament structures would be another possible section / appendix.

It would be good to have a document that the whole community could refer to even if they're picking and choosing different sections of it (a bit like NEC contracts if anyone gets that reference).

This would be a good idea, actually, incorporating the FAQ into the actual rules descriptions, along with the clarifications on thenaf.net so it is all in one place. Might be confusing for people to have more than one "official" rulebook floating about with different words in. At least when GW were still involved you knew the best place to go for the rules.

One problem would be that Icepelt rulebooks have used GW's stuff in an unauthorised way. Although it is now on the Cyanide website! All very silly.

Yep, it's the legality of making changes to GW's text and releasing it that's an issue there. Which of course doesn't mean we could do nothing, just that an additional handbook is possibly a better bet.

Yeah, I never really got what happened there. Owning a copy (or certainly sending it around or posting links) was seen as treachery punishable by death a couple of years back and then all of a sudden Cyanide are using it.

My bet is that they don't even realise they're using a ruleset that GW blackballed on their site and just grabbed anything or the prettiest. And that GW don't actually care enough anymore or don't see it in their interest to tell Cyanide to change it.

Tis odd though.

Honestly, I wonder if there would be legal grounds for the contributors to the LRB to challenge GW's use of their wording without credit. I suspect that it stands or falls on whether they explicitly agreed to do so or not, then subsequesntly whether their lack of challenge to GW's claim of the IP in porting to CRP means that they've passed over the claim.

Either way, my instinct is that we need to recognise CRP as belonging to GW, being the official rules until they as the owners declare otherwise, and accept that we can reasonably provide additional rules and guidance on what we consider to be standard interpretation in our own document to be read alongside CRP - perhaps in the form of a NAF handbook - so long as we are supplementing rather than contradicting the CRP document.

My understanding of IP ownership is that it cannot be applied to rulesets, only to specific creations (names, characters, artwork). This is why you can find knock-off copies of games like Connect Four marketed as ‘4-in-a-Row’ or ‘Join Four’. The name Connect Four is protected but the concept and rules cannot be.
The Icepelt ruleset would breach various IP laws due to its use of GW owned artwork and also GW owned terms such as ‘Skaven’. However, it should be possible to re-write the fundamental rules to Blood Bowl, removing all GW IP to produce a Rulebook the NAF could legally distribute. The main stumbling points I see are:

• For good or bad, the NAF are reluctant to take any action which might upset GW. I think this would definitely fall into that category.
• ’Blood Bowl’ is GW IP, so removing that would be re-naming the game from the NAF perspective, which leads to the usual concerns of splitting fan-bases.
• I suspect a wholesale lifting of the CRP would still be susceptible to legal challenge, even with GW trademarks and copyrights removed. The rules would need to be re-phrased or re-interpreted. The issue here is the risk of introducing ambiguity or mis-match between CRP and NAF rulesets. On the plus side, there would be scope to remove ambiguity and tighten up the rules too.

It’s a nice idea and one I would support, but unfortunately I would be very surprised to see it happen.

(Disclaimer, I am not a Lawyer, the above is based on my reading on the subject and no more)

By my own basic understanding, you're correct. But consider what you're proposing: that we totally rewrite the game, introducing new phrases and distorting existing wording. That would be immensely problematic and introduce a lot of confusion - and to what end?

A phrase about eggs and omelettes springs to mind...

I think the Blood Bowl 'brand' is the only thing keeping the game going. The vast, vast majority of coaches have absolutely no interest or knowledge of this kind of online debate. Just look at the turnout for NAF elections. There are 1000 people willing to pay to fly to Italy to play this game, but fewer than 100 people bothered to vote in the recent League Director elections.

I seriously doubt that, even were the NAF to go rogue and try to steal the game under a different name, anyone would notice. All it would do is divide the already small subsection of coaches who pay attention to online events. I doubt there would be any traction with the wider community of actual or potential BB coaches.

Surely everyone involved in NAF-sanctioned tournaments would know about it?

dode74 wrote:Surely everyone involved in NAF-sanctioned tournaments would know about it?

Whilst my league may be dead, there are still about 6 or 7 BB'ers near me who go to NAF tourneys and I am the only one who knows about this debate.

lunchmoney wrote:there are still about 6 or 7 BB'ers near me who go to NAF tourneys and I am the only one who knows about this debate.

It's not about the debate, it's about having a BBRC apart from GW and an own set of rules.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of this idea either.
Blood Bowl is GW and if they decided to shun it sideways 'cause it ain't produce enough revenue to be bothered with, so be it.
Cyanide is their way of a good approach: Get money for the use of the IP but have absolutely no expenses with it.

I still believe in using the CRP.
All the changes ever made to the rules were made on purpose and after testing, as far as I know.
There is a reason why certain roster have not been approved.

The NAF is the NAF and not the BBRC.

I am 100% behind not changing any rules. I was talking about a version of the rules with fewer holes in, not changing them. Just in case of doubt.

lunchmoney wrote:

dode74 wrote:Surely everyone involved in NAF-sanctioned tournaments would know about it?

Whilst my league may be dead, there are still about 6 or 7 BB'ers near me who go to NAF tourneys and I am the only one who knows about this debate.

If people going to NAF tourneys aren't aware of it isn't that a failing of the NAF?