Talk Fantasy Football

True.
Then I guess we are stuck with whichever fallout any would-be Cyanide rules changes causes.
Cheers
Martin

Shteve0 wrote:Gents - apologies in advance if I sound a little exasperated. My question to you: have you read the NAF charter? Which bit of it even remotely suggests we have the authority/opportunity/responsibility to make changes to the game rules?

Who wrote the NAF charter?

Not me, and more to the point, I dont have the power to change it (that'd take a majority member vote). I assume youre not suggesting charters can be exceeded or breached unilaterally on the basis that they were written by predecessors, that's just facile.

My point is, regardless of NAF staffers' personal thoughts on the matter, we/they are realistically no more empowered to dictate, approve or endorse changes to the rules than anyone else. By all means criticise the NAF for failing to meet its charter, or for breaching it in the past... but it's a little unfair to criticise the NAF for not unilaterally breaching it's own charter, particularly without a defined problem to solve.

Shteve0 wrote:Gents - apologies in advance if I sound a little exasperated. My question to you: have you read the NAF charter? Which bit of it even remotely suggests we have the authority/opportunity/responsibility to make changes to the game rules?

If I wanted to quibble then I might argue that ...grow interest in the game of Blood Bowl... and ...tournament/league support... potentially provide scope to get involved in changing rules. Certainly if the NAF decided that the Bank Rule was recommended for NAF leagues or that the Spiralling Expenses table was altered to improve League balancing, I don't think anyone would argue that they were overstepping their mandate. However, that would be splitting hairs.

Of more interest is whether the NAF Charter is still fit for purpose. It was written 12 years ago and the BB world has changed significantly since then. Primarily GW have dropped all support for the game but also third-party companies like Cyanide have licensed the rights to the game. I'm not sure the NAF Charter accurately reflects what the members seem to want from the NAF. It could be beneficial to have that discussion and either have the NAF take on a wider mandate or clarify that they will not get involved in certain aspects of the game.

It was a genuine question regarding the charter, and I am not suggesting the NAF board act outside their remit. If the charter is not fit for purpose or the NAF feels it needs new powers and it needs a majority member vote for that to happen then have one. What's the problem?

Apologies, that's poor communication on my part - "the matter" I referred to in my last post is that of the CPOMB issue (or otherwise). Yes, if the charter was deemed unfit for purpose it could be changed. That's a big 'if', and likely another discussion entirely. Currently, the rules are the rules, and if there's a problem in a given environment my personal take is that we need to define it and look to address it through the structure of the environment in which it occurs. I'm sure there are NAF staff keen to chip into that discussion.

How will you know if the charter is unfit for purpose? My suspicion is that it will take a NAF president election running on the issue, but you'd know better than me

Different discussion. Personally I suspect that what happens with BB2 may prove to be a major test of what the NAF is about and what it needs to do to represent the interests of the player base.

Well a similar discussion is taking place in the NAF subforum, so I'd be delighted if you could answer the question there.

I think there are far too many unknowns with BB2 to say whether it will have any effect at all. It might even be a total flop.

plasmoid wrote:True.
Then I guess we are stuck with whichever fallout any would-be Cyanide rules changes causes.
Cheers
Martin

Martin, unless I missed something, it is Cyanide who are the leading the game (rules wise) for the forseeable future. The rest of the hobby trails behind them.

All the best.

They are leading the PC game, but does that amount to the same thing as leading TT?

Steve - I give one example of the NAF not taking an opportunity to lead. It was when they declined to have anything to do with the Khorne team. IMO they could have easily chosen to include Khorne as an official or semi-official race for rankings purposes (after some sort of orderly trial period). To my surprise they took the "do nothing" option, albeit with a lot of accompanying hot air.

All the best.

dode74 wrote:They are leading the PC game, but does that amount to the same thing as leading TT?

Yes, because nobody else is doing any leading.

Is everyone who needs to doing the following, though? Sounds like a dumb question but if Cyanide are standing up shouting "Hey everyone, this way!" it means nothing at all unless FUMBBL and TT actually do it.

Smeborg wrote:Steve - I give one example of the NAF not taking an opportunity to lead. It was when they declined to have anything to do with the Khorne team. IMO they could have easily chosen to include Khorne as an official or semi-official race for rankings purposes (after some sort of orderly trial period). To my surprise they took the "do nothing" option, albeit with a lot of accompanying hot air.

All the best.

No, not doing anything would have been to ignore the issue totally. They came out and said they were not going to include the roster at this time. That was making a decision. Sounds to me like you have a bias about the issue.

I really don't know what they should do. The future of BB with Cyanide making decisions really isn't clear. I think the smart move is to sit and wait until at least BB 2 comes out and then decide what to do. As discussed, what's being asked of the NAF now was never in their mandate, however I doubt we could have predicted the position/state BB is in today.

Difficult position for them, and a lot is being asked (too much maybe).