Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

[lunchmoney]

I don't particularly want to see any new teams get added onto the 24. But that's just because I like the state of things now and I don't want anything to change

Blood Bowl changing from its' current state going forward is something I and any others of a similar opinion are just going to have to live with if we want to keep playing it. I'd love it to stay how it is, but at the same time I don't want to become that one guy who has to drag someone into a game of 3rd ed. every now and then.

I'd rather Khorne didn't happen.

+1

[Wifflebat]

I don't particularly want to see any new teams get added onto the 24. But that's just because I like the state of things now and I don't want anything to change

Blood Bowl changing from its' current state going forward is something I and any others of a similar opinion are just going to have to live with if we want to keep playing it. I'd love it to stay how it is, but at the same time I don't want to become that one guy who has to drag someone into a game of 3rd ed. every now and then.

I'd rather Khorne didn't happen.

I'm with you, in large part. I think the game the best it's ever been, and the worst thing that could happen would be a substantial rules revision (or, ye gods, some kind of reboot from GW). But I think that new teams would be a modular change that might freshen things up for people who want new stuff. Khorne wouldn't be my first choice, either, but if it's a team that has traction, it's worth looking in to.

I myself am fine--I took a long break from the game and have lots of teams to play that are still essentially "new" to me!

[plasmoid]

I suppose I'm more positive towards the roster than most. Sure, some things bother me, but to me it is still paletable.
My thoughts on 3 points raised so far:
*Since killy'er-than-chaos would never work, I quite like the ritual sacrifice/surf angle.
*It was designed by people who play the game. Under heavy restrictions, mind you, but still.
*I think a new roster every 5 (or even 3. Radical!) years would help keep the game fresh and interesting.

Cheers
Martin

[spubbbba]

My main gripe with the Khorne roster is that it didn't really add anything new or interesting. We already had a frenzy heavy team in the shape of Norse and the lrb5 version of them finally got a lot more varied by getting away from mass 7/3/3/7.

Personally I'd rather we radically alter or even drop some dull existing teams (khemri and zons both spring to mind).

[Waldorf28]

I love the Khemri roster.

The history of BB shows that full rosters, once official, are never dropped. Khemri and Necro were intended to replace the Undead roster, but ended up just being additions.

There have been experimental rosters, and they have been dropped (I fondly remember the Old World Alliance). I suggest Khorne is elevated to that status so serious data can be gathered.

[mzukerman]

Perhaps an intermediary step? They are allowed but don't count for NAF rankings for a pilot period of 6 months or something? This might dissuade the folks who are desperate for ranks, but it's a limited time.

[nazgob]

Isn't that already allowed? I seem to recall that some tourneys allow khorne now.

[mzukerman]

Isn't that already allowed? I seem to recall that some tourneys allow khorne now.

I mentioned that because of this from the sanctioning page:

Games involving rosters outside of this set of 24 will not be approved at present. In future we will be led by CRP (the official rules for tabletop Blood Bowl) regarding any changes to the rules of the game, including any new rosters.

Although now that I reread that, I see my error. It states "games", not "tournaments". So if that's the case, then yes it is already allowed. Maybe the next step is to start collecting the data and pay attention to it. Do they come across as anything like a tier 1 team? I suspect not.

[babass]

In order to better evaluate this roster now, it would be nice if the games involving khorne in NAF-tourney would be "stored" somehow.
With some statistics like we could have for the other rosters (like those one: http://naf.talkfantasyfootball.org/ ), we would better see if the TT-community does want this new roster or not, and how successfull this roster is...

[Glowworm]

I'm missing the point here (no surprise) why do we need to "evaluate" the roster at all, its the roster we have and that's not changing (aside from house rulings) anytime soon. Some rosters perform better in tournaments than leagues, others worse, take Dark Elves, not brilliant (not bad just not brilliant) in tournaments, great in leagues.

If they don't perform (Khorne) in tournaments then so what? Gobbo's & Orges don't sparkle but are still played, some tournament formats encourage lower tier teams (extra cash skills, etc.) and very soon Khorne would find their level: 1.0 no thanks, 1.1 maybe. 1.25 all day long perhaps.

I often see what seems to be people over engineering a solution to what's not really a problem, let em in, you may find they are popular for the next 6 months at loads of tourneys then like Nurgle (for example) are rarely seen. I for one would welcome them a Crumb-Bowl (as long as the models where appropriate )

[Gaixo]

It really does come down to the old "slippery slope" argument. If Khorne, a roster which most people seem to regard as benign, is allowed into the game, how long before something more contentious, such as Bretonnians, are also forced in? In a worst-case scenario, we're eventually sanctioning games of pygmies versus genestealers. It's much easier to hold the line and resist change altogether, rather than opening that floodgate.

[Gaixo]

Regarding the "fluffiness" of the Khorne roster, I once saw a very elegant solution which also toned down the ol' CLPOMB issue. It may have even been posted here.

Several teams would be scrambled so that we would have:
CHAOS (exact same as current Chaos Pact, save 0-16 Marauders)
0-16 Marauders 50,000 GSPM A
0-1 Goblin Renegade 40,000 AM GSP
0-1 Skaven Renegade 50,000 GM ASP
0-1 Dark Elf Renegade 70,000 GAM SP
0-1 Chaos Troll 110,000 S GAPM
0-1 Chaos Ogre 140,000 S GAPM
0-1 Minotaur 150,000 S GAPM

BEASTS OF CHAOS
0-16 Beastmen 60,000 GS APM (note the change)
0-4 Herdlords (or whatever) GS APM (renamed Khorne Heralds with M access on doubles)
0-1 Chaos Minotaur 150,000 SM GAP

KHORNE
0-16 Pit Fighters 50,000 GP AS
0-4 Bloodletters 80,000 GAS P (could see leaving these out altogether if the team seems too well-rounded)
0-4 Champions of Khorne 100,000 GSM AP (renamed Chaos Warriors)
0-1 Bloodthirster 180,000 S GAP

[Fassbinder75]

Ah the good old intellectually bankrupt, slippery slope argument. normally employed by dog whistling politicians and tabloids for fear-mongering purposes. You can do better gaixo.

[Gaixo]

Don't count on it!

I am pretty open-minded about Khorne. In fact, we added Khorne to my league (which I am very protective of) just after the NAF's initial ruling. I don't like the team personally, and like some of the other proposed teams even less, but am not wholly opposed to allowing them in. Don't be surprised if this is soon revisited by the NAF, now that some time has passed and there are new officers in place.

BUT, by what criteria do we judge them? Strength of the roster (or lack thereof)? Popularity? The fact that they're in a GW-sanctioned product? Must it be all 3 at once? 2 out of 3? "Slippery slope" might be too easy, but once precedent is set it becomes much more difficult to bar Bretonnians (or whatever GW/Cyanide dream up next), even if that roster is terrible

[Vanguard]

BUT, by what criteria do we judge them? Strength of the roster (or lack thereof)? Popularity? The fact that they're in a GW-sanctioned product? Must it be all 3 at once? 2 out of 3? "Slippery slope" might be too easy, but once precedent is set it becomes much more difficult to bar Bretonnians (or whatever GW/Cyanide dream up next), even if that roster is terrible

What criteria were Chaos Pact, Slann and Underworld judged on by the BBRC?
From my point of view (and I happily admit I'm probably overlooking lots) Strength of Roster, Popularity, Distinctiveness, Fluff and Benefit to the Community should all be considered.
Strength of Roster: The current teams range from a 55% win ratio to 45% based on NAF tournament data (I think, quoting from memory here) with more variety in league play at various TV levels. There would need to be relative certainty that any new team would fit into the established range in both resurrection and perpetual play to avoid unbalancing the game (any more than it is currently unbalanced)
Popularity: There would need to be a moderate group in favour of their addition, also there should not be more than a minority of opposition. While a team may not be mechanically powerful, if it tends to result in poor matches then that has to count against it. (Yes, I am well aware that that accusation can be thrown at Amazons, Dwarves etc. All the more reason to avoid introducing more examples)
Distinctiveness: Teams that bring nothing substantially different to existing teams are pointless. It has to offer a new style of play, development paths, combinations of skills etc. This in particular is very clear in the Chaos Pact, Slann, Underworld teams.
Fluff: It should fit the (very malleable) fluff of Blood Bowl. So broadly speaking Brettonians would be up for consideration, Space Marines wouldn't.
Benefit to the Community: Does a team have any fringe benefits? This is primarily for the benefit of Khorne - it is an established team in the Cyanide game and by not supporting it, we add to the problems of attracting online players to tabletop. It's not a big obstacle, it's not an unsurmountable obstacle but is it even necessary?

Based on that, I'd argue that it should be raised to Experimental status so that NAF can start recording results. Yes, it looks to be neither under-powered or over-powered but that still needs to be backed up. Also, the majority of Khorne matches are league play which can be distinctly different to resurrection style NAF play.