CRP+

[Joemanji]

If there were to be a new BBRC, I'd hope the NAF would select the people currently best suited to the job, rather than respecting almost hereditary positions. Most of the current members were selected ten years ago, and some of them rarely or never even play any more. The community has moved on, and there are plenty of keen minds who play extensively that would surely do a fine job in their place.

[Gaixo]

Do you have any in mind? (I agree, by the way.)


An unfortunate issue here is that the prospect of a new BBRC wasn't brought up at all during the most recent NAF elections, so there is no real mandate from the membership/electorate. That's setting aside the fact that the majority of Blood Bowlers are not NAF members, for better or worse, so their opinions still wouldn't be known. So while many of us here might like to see some changes, there's no proof that this move would be happily accepted by your average player.

That isn't to say that we should abandon the issue, but there seems to be an implication that this is something that everyone except the NAF committee wants.

[Darkson]

So I'd suggest having them come together for a rules reunion. Then adding to their number some new blood like the current NAF officers and some representatives from the people "in the trenches" like the major tournament runners (NAF Cup, Chaos, Zlurpee, Spike, Ausbowl (sp?), Dungeonbowl, Eurobowl... off the top of my head) and big online groups like Fumbbl and Cyanide's League runners.

I agree with Joe regarding some of the old BBRC. I'd also say that some (not all!) tournament players (including some winners) don't play much league so wouldn't be suited to a BBRC - there's a big difference is knowing what works in a league than what works in a ressie tournament.
I'd hope that any potential BBRC would reach out to the digital community, or at least Fumbbl, but that would also need the Fumbbl coder(s?) to be flexible in changing things during testing, rather than burying their head in the sand like they did during the Vault.

[Joemanji]

True, the validity of any future rule set would be dependent on the FUMBBL coders. Without them there would be no way to bring in enough data.

[plasmoid]

Interesting discussion.
Like Joe (and others) I can see both good and bad in this. The fragmentation is a major concern. Even so, after 5 years I'm about ready for some tweaks. (And no, I don't for a second believe I would be let anywhere near it, so this is not about that )

On thought occurs to me:
Through the entire LRB process, it seems to me no-one worried much about "noobs" not being able to keep up with the changes.

Either way, a NAF-appointed committee is about the only way I can see for any such Group to have any kind of legitimacy.
Cheers
Martin

[dode74]

Be honest, Martin, you were ready for change after 5 games

I think the reason there was no problem with noobs before was the legitimacy given by GW. It was clear that the rules would be published by the IP owners, so there could be no issues over what "official" meant. Even with a NAF appointed committee the meaning of "official" would fall to opinion alone, which is where the problem with the noobs lies. Right now we can easily turn to CRP.

I also think it's really important for online and TT to have a common core. Be that FUMBBL or Cyanide I couldn't care less, but the volume of data required to legitimise the changes can only really be gathered online.

[Joemanji]

It is really easy for 'us' - the kind of people on this thread - to lose track of how far down the rabbit hole we are. As part of my NAF role, and just generally in league play, I am regularly meeting people who play Blood Bowl extensively but have never heard of the NAF. And even then, I speak to NAF members of many years who know nothing about World Cups, Eurobowls, elections, majors etc. I'm not sure there is mandate for the NAF to rewrite the rules with all the consequences that would entail (more is the pity).

[Pakulkan]

Thank you all for your point of view. Please, let me re-set a bit the discussion I proposed.

My main concern was pretty much listed by Dark Duke, and it is summarized in an issue that was not addressed before in this discussion:

Where we could find out the BloodBowl ruleset?

Actually, both a veteran and a noob player, a former TT gamer or a newcomer from Cyanide's version, would eventually search for a copy of the current rules. There is no longer a Specialist Games section in GW's website where you could find the Official Rules for Bloodbowl.

One would search for "BloodBowl" on Google or will ask a friend about this issue, and would by informed by the community of what is currently being used as "official Bloodbowl rules".

This is the current situation, I do think fragmentation is actually happening (as slow as continents move, maybe, but ongoing) and NAF would act by keeping community together more than fragmenting it.

A GW sanctioned ruleset is desirable, but with the coming of years, we will eventually face off the same situation that Mordheim, BG, Necromunda, Warmaster or Epic faced: Fracture of the community when several different groups implement their own ruleset or rules changes.

Actually, we are just in the impasse between fully GW sanctioned ruleset and many years without any update. From my point of view to be afraid of a GW action and let this opportunity disappear could be a major problem for the future of Bloodbowl.

I guess it is in NAF purpose to "promote BB" so it should include to keep the game as ballanced and homogeneous as possible. This massive organization is the only one that could assure a proper update of LRB, so far I guess this work should be taken as a duty more than an option nowadays. We are not discussing about perfect situations, we are considering if a NAF-sanctioned CRP would be better than use an unaltered GW ruleset (by today the answer seems to be quite easy, but would everyone still use the LRB6.0 in 2025? Or many communities would adapt the PC rules - even the bugs, because they feel this is the "real" game?).

To decide HOW to perform it, WHO should perform it, WHAT to do... are future steps in a putative path. Actually I belive most important thing is to decide if it is worthy to do it or not.

[Pakulkan]

It is really easy for 'us' - the kind of people on this thread - to lose track of how far down the rabbit hole we are. As part of my NAF role, and just generally in league play, I am regularly meeting people who play Blood Bowl extensively but have never heard of the NAF. And even then, I speak to NAF members of many years who know nothing about World Cups, Eurobowls, elections, majors etc. I'm not sure there is mandate for the NAF to rewrite the rules with all the consequences that would entail (more is the pity).

But for me this is more a challenge than a problem.

Should be the purpose of the NAF to provide all kind of Bloodbowlers a comprehensive approach to the game?

I think is desirable.

And from my own current experience with Mordheim and Battlefleet gothic, it is quite disappointing to search on the internet a broadly accepted ruleset and find out a number of forums, blogs, etc. with no homogeneous consensus.

From our side, we do have a massive Bloodbowl community (far larger than any other game) called NAF that could effectively work as a central core for Bloodbowl events, rules, etc.

One could argue that a Cyanide player could also never heard about Games Workshop. But once he starts searching in the internet he would easily reach GW former BB website.

From now on ther is no longer official website, but we do have a BB community summing up thousands of players, different continents, a tournament circuit and several international forums linked where community could drive any doubt to the NAF if it acts as a central resource of rules.

Far better than in other games. Not the 100% of the BB players, agree, but strong enough to be the "official BBRC" without doubt.

[sann0638]

This is a really interesting debate, thanks Pako - it's partly a philosophical debate about "what is Blood Bowl", and the stat that I come back to whenever I start thinking that there is a homogeneous BB community is the 64,000 Likes that the Cyanide game has on Facebook, dwarfing (sorry Heff) any impact or reach that the NAF has, unfortunately. Brings me down to earth, anyway.

[txapo]

And I think Jervis should be contacted and offered to join the comitee. I don't know if he is still at Lenton's studio or not. Even if he would refuse politeness is politeness.

[lunchmoney]

.... the 64,000 Likes that the Cyanide game has on Facebook, dwarfing (sorry Heff) any impact or reach that the NAF has, unfortunately.

Facebook likes mean nothing when they can be bought.

[sann0638]

True, but their posts regularly get three figure Like/Share/Comments, which are not usually bought, and in the absence of other data...

[dode74]

I don't particularly care for the "social media" measure of things, but I do know that Blood Bowl has been Focus' best selling game by some time - hence the desire to make a further iteration beyond that which was required by the original court case from Chaos League's existence. I also know that they have over 3 times the number of games played per day as FUMBBL does (which is actually a huge credit to FUMBBL), and suspect that there are far more one-game-a-week players on Cyanide than there are on FUMBBL where people often play far more regularly. With that in mind it's not unreasonable to suggest that they do have considerable reach.

[Darkson]

Reach is one thing, a clue is another...