NAF response to possible BB2 rule changes

[rolo]

The idea of repeatedly patching the rules I don't see translating well to tabletop at all. As this thread conveniently demonstrates, it's easy to forget that new or lapsed players coming in are already faced with a myriad different rulebooks from which to choose.

Sure, but I do believe there needs to be some kind of process for changing rules (or rather, formalizing widely accepted rule changes into one place).

For example, every sanctioned NAF tournament allows Slann, Pact, Underworld. They should be in a rulebook.

Every tournament I've been to has ignored the Illegal Procedure rule. That should be changed to an optional rule or deleted.

Stuff like that, which is widely accepted and would be totally non-controversial.

But I think things would be easier if there were one official document. Call it the "NAF Tournament and League Rulebook", with all of the rules in one place. Maybe update it every couple years or so as needed.

[Darkson]

For example, every sanctioned NAF tournament allows Slann, Pact, Underworld. They should be in a rulebook.

They are, it's the LRB6 or Icepelt rulebook (which ironically were the rules on the Cyanide site last time I looked).

[sann0638]

For example, every sanctioned NAF tournament allows Slann, Pact, Underworld. They should be in a rulebook.

They are, it's the LRB6 or Icepelt rulebook (which ironically were the rules on the Cyanide site last time I looked).

And are still.

[sann0638]

Bit of chat about all this here: http://officialnaf.libsyn.com/nafcast-11

Worth a listen, I think

[Pakulkan]

An statement is welcome, even not agreeing with the content (you know, I'm Pako )

So far, as I understand Icepelt is NOT an official ruleset.

But it works pretty well and was the real LRB 6.0.

As stated by some others, you already have a divergence between PC and tabletop gamers in terms of ruling (AV Human Catcher, Bertonnians) that would eventually became bigger and bigger.

You are already giving as a reference a non GW official ruleset, so, why not improve it?

At this point I am sorry to note again that maybe it is time for NAF to build a comittee and review BB Ruleset (or simply monitor them and sanction) as the main group of organized tabletop BB players. Having Fumbbl on this comittee would be the most inclusive players group possible. Even BBRC publish a series of changes to be considered after LRB 6.0!!!

From now, what we got is an statement saying basically that the problem is not faced at all.

Arguments noting that a modification of CRP would make rules confusive for the community is not valid for me anymore, as Cyanide itself already cross that line and changed the GW consensus rules in their way. So your options are:

Follow Cyanide rules, which in fact have GW IP approval and could be considered "official".
Not follow Cyanide rules, and no matter if you stay on CRP or change it to a new NAF Ruleset, would always be different than the rules PC gamers already use.

For the hardcore officialists, I may note again that Cyanide currently have Bloodbowl license and GW sanction to change the rules, so maybe Cyanide's are the official ones and not CRP.

I do not like to depend on a PC game developer, so far I also note current NAF position dangerously unrealistic...

Beside this, inclusion of Brets, Apes (¿?) and Druids (¿?) and changes in the ruleset accepted while still being a NAF tournament are poorly defined. Not only between countries but between NAF TOs their personal consideration could make your tournament sanctioned or not having the same ruleset.

A general clarificacion could be useful and welcome, defining what parts of the ruleset could not change (e.g. Core Rules, Kick Off, Roster composition, etc.) and what rules could be modified in a NAF sanctioned tournament (Player skills, Add gaming events, etc.). At least in this way you could provide some kind of homogeneus criteria.

[Vanguard]

I'm a little torn over this whole issue. I understand the NAF's reluctance to accept all past and future changes implemented by Cyanide with no involvement in the process. However, I am also broadly in favour of developing the ruleset and moving the game forward rather than drawing a line under the CRP and declaring BB complete.

I would be curious to know what the NAF's reaction would be if:
a) Cyanide release an updated rulebook to go along with BB2. (I'd like to assume that they must, even if it's only for roster changes) I believe the NAF does still reference Cyanide's copy of the LRB as official.
b) Games Workshop released a new version of BB with new/updated rules.
c) GW licensed BB out to another company for a tabletop release with new/updated rules.

I get the feeling that a new GW release (unless it was a so radically altered that it could be considered a different game altogether) would be accepted by the NAF as an official rules update. The same is also true of any officially licensed version. (I can see strong support for maintaining CRP tournaments as a 'Classic' format with the NAF but cannot see them ignoring a new tabletop release.)
Cyanide falls into a 'no-man's land' where they are licensed by GW and empowered to update the rules but not accepted as TT official as it's for a digital version of the game. It makes it easy to dismiss their changes as not real or irrelevant to tabletop. I'm not sure that this double standard is justified or necessary.

Also, I would like to point out that Cyanide's alteration of the rules so far has been fairly respectful to the tabletop community.

• They based the game on CRP and kept their own rules additions as optional.
• They developed the Khorne team with some input from the community.
• They seem to have based the Brettonian team on an established community variant that has been playtested.
• They seem to have made changes based on the CRP+ which were originally suggested by the BBRC.

Yes, their implementation of the rules has left a lot to desire at times and the current PC version is still not 100% CRP compliant. However, Cyanide have never suggested that the way their game works should be taken as gospel and override the rules that they host.

The NAF statement is fine for now as they're effectively saying there will be no changes to NAF tournaments based on rumours surrounding a new Cyanide release and I doubt anyone expected there would be.

[Darkson]

(I'd like to assume that they must, even if it's only for roster changes) I believe the NAF does still reference Cyanide's copy of the LRB as official.

At the moment, the rulebook Cyanide has up on it's site is the LRB6/Icepelt rulebook, so no Khorne but with Pact and Slann.

• They based the game on CRP and kept their own rules additions as optional.
• They developed the Khorne team with some input from the community.
• They seem to have based the Brettonian team on an established community variant that has been playtested.
• They seem to have made changes based on the CRP+ which were originally suggested by the BBRC.

1. That is/was the case in BB1/LE/CE, but it's by no means clear if that will be the case with BB2.
2. Only because someone (Dode?) was lucky enough to see their initial version before it was released. They hadn't intended for there to be any community involvment. And what involvement there was was handcuffed by restrictions and done in secret. I'm not sure 3 non-company BB players counts "community involvement"
3. Agreed. But why add a team that isn't in the game to start with, especially one that doesn't have even a majority acceptance?
4. The CRP+ were originally suggested by the BBRC as things they'd like to see tested - they never said they should be put into the rules "as is". And there's no evidence for which parts of the CRP+ have been used yet, other than the AV8 Human Catchers.


And as has been asked more than once, if Cyanide don't put Khorne into BB2 (there has been no indication either way) why should the NAF do so?

[Vanguard]

(I'd like to assume that they must, even if it's only for roster changes) I believe the NAF does still reference Cyanide's copy of the LRB as official.

At the moment, the rulebook Cyanide has up on it's site is the LRB6/Icepelt rulebook, so no Khorne but with Pact and Slann.

Yes, there's currently no issue with the version Cyanide host, I was more interested in what would happen if Cyanide hosted an 'updated' version. That said, I had it in my head that the HAF referenced the Cyanide copy as the first choice. Double checking I see the NAF host the CRP locally and only suggest Cyanide as an alternative so less of a problem if that were no longer available.

• They based the game on CRP and kept their own rules additions as optional.
• They developed the Khorne team with some input from the community.
• They seem to have based the Brettonian team on an established community variant that has been playtested.
• They seem to have made changes based on the CRP+ which were originally suggested by the BBRC.

1. That is/was the case in BB1/LE/CE, but it's by no means clear if that will be the case with BB2.
2. Only because someone (Dode?) was lucky enough to see their initial version before it was released. They hadn't intended for there to be any community involvment. And what involvement there was was handcuffed by restrictions and done in secret. I'm not sure 3 non-company BB players counts "community involvement"
3. Agreed. But why add a team that isn't in the game to start with, especially one that doesn't have even a majority acceptance?
4. The CRP+ were originally suggested by the BBRC as things they'd like to see tested - they never said they should be put into the rules "as is". And there's no evidence for which parts of the CRP+ have been used yet, other than the AV8 Human Catchers.

2. Ok, it may not have been planned but at least they listened and that seems to have improved as time went on. What would constitute community involvement? The BBRC was four (five?) community members plus JJ, was that sufficient? (I am also not suggesting design by committee is a good idea)
3. Because marketing it as "the game we should have made the first time" probably wasn't going to work? It's a video game sequel, it needs to expand on the original in some way in order to sell. As far as I am aware, there are no un-official teams with majority acceptance. Chaos Pact and Slann would be the only alternatives. Can't say why they picked Brets over them. (Pact too similar to Chaos in initial eight teams? Slann too unusual?)

And as has been asked more than once, if Cyanide don't put Khorne into BB2 (there has been no indication either way) why should the NAF do so?

For the same reason that they should add Brets and Apes - people want to play them. This is separate to the Cyanide issues, but the NAF is there to support it's members and there seems to be a sizable minority who want to play those teams. (Yes, there is also a vocal minority who want nothing to do with those teams but I suspect both groups would be dwarfed by the people that just want to have their tournament results recorded regardless. I hate playing against dwarves, but I'm not going to stop you. )
I would like to see a stronger and clearer stance than "it's up to the TO and we may or may not approve on a case by case basis" and I'd like to see all matches recorded regardless of race. I have some hope that this may emerge from the data review that is currently ongoing. (From a data point of view there's a strong argument for identifying 'Strict CRP' tournaments and 'Variant' where there are any house rules, including tiers etc.)

[VoodooMike]

c) GW licensed BB out to another company for a tabletop release with new/updated rules.

I'm not certain that the NAF would rush to adopt a new TT BB released from, say, Fantasy Flight (the company GW has pushed several old IPs onto) as they tend to change the rules and mechanics dramatically.

Once upon a time the NAF had an official working relationship with GW - they were licensed (or had permission) to use the block dice images to print their own yearly offerings and such. How quickly the NAF adopted a new TT revamp would depend on how quickly the players adopted it, and whether or not the NAF established a similar working relationship with the new company.

They developed the Khorne team with some input from the community.

Pft. "input from the community" suggests an open invitation to give input to the community... not picking out a couple of people and having everything behind closed doors. The latter is just tokenism. In fact, the lack of genuine insight/respect for the community is compounded by...

They seem to have based the Brettonian team on an established community variant that has been playtested.

..the inclusion of fan fiction that isn't widely accepted. "Play tested" doesn't mean anything... you ask a couple of guys what they think about something and they say "works for me!" - that's not objective or empirical data, that's fluff. Aparteid was "play tested" and found to have merit by the people who adopted it

And as has been asked more than once, if Cyanide don't put Khorne into BB2 (there has been no indication either way) why should the NAF do so?

Honestly, unless Cyanide is our new de facto leader, who gives a shit what they decide to do? There are people playing khorne in TT, including tournaments that are including them, and it is (as far as I know) the most widely used 3rd party roster thus far. The question shouldn't be about whether the roster persists in online play, it should be whether it persists in TT play.

I would like to see a stronger and clearer stance than "it's up to the TO and we may or may not approve on a case by case basis" and I'd like to see all matches recorded regardless of race. I have some hope that this may emerge from the data review that is currently ongoing. (From a data point of view there's a strong argument for identifying 'Strict CRP' tournaments and 'Variant' where there are any house rules, including tiers etc.)

I'd also like to see a firmer stance than what the NAF takes, but I don't think every game needs to be recorded... I think NAF sanctioned tournaments should be required to abide by the official ruleset (and rosters) as defined by the NAF. I'd be fine if the NAF also started accepting new rosters (though I don't have any particular love for the ones I've seen) but the current stance is very wishy-washy.

I'm increasingly unsure as to why the NAF couldn't be completely replaced with a php script with half-decent input validation, and this forum.

[Darkson]

The question shouldn't be about whether the roster persists in online play, it should be whether it persists in TT play.

Exactly my point. Was there a clamour for Khorne to be added before Cyanide added it? No, of course there wasn't. And I seriously doubt that the roster will habh around much if/when Cyanide drop it/Cyanide get dropped.

@Vanguard - yes, there were only 5 people on the BBRC, but they didn't make changes in secret. They made suggestions, but here and the old SG forum were where people could discuss and bring there own findings to the table - at the very least the cards and Underworld were added because the community requested it and pushed it towards the BBRC. Unless I was looking in the wrong place I can't recall any discussion regarding the Khorne team on any open forum until after the roster was locked down and in the game.

[GalakStarscraper]

@Vanguard - yes, there were only 5 people on the BBRC, but they didn't make changes in secret. They made suggestions, but here and the old SG forum were where people could discuss and bring there own findings to the table - at the very least the cards and Underworld were added because the community requested it and pushed it towards the BBRC. Unless I was looking in the wrong place I can't recall any discussion regarding the Khorne team on any open forum until after the roster was locked down and in the game.

I would concur with Darkson's statement above (as one of the few folks that got to help develop the Khorne team and was on the original BBRC).

[RoterSternHochdahl]

And there we are: back to details but with no strategy and caught between a blurry Definition of "official", a half-cooked idea of IP and its implications to the options the NAF may pursue in the future and the unsolicited but factual leadership of a third party beyond our control.

I would like to thank Pakulkan and Vanguard for the Point made above despite the true or false of any of their statements because they are pointing out what we should be discussing about and that is neither Khorne, nor Brets, nor AV8 on Human Catchers. It is rather: which options do we really have? What are the obstacles we face in the different directions? Is there a way for a collaborative relationship with Cyanide in order to gain back some prerogative on the ruleset? and so on

[sann0638]

Lots of good points being made. There is a committee level position in the NAF going at the moment if anyone would like a strong voice in the NAF.

[Joemanji]

Well hopefully the League Director position is not a back door route to 'power'. Rather it is an opportunity for someone passionate about league Blood Bowl to give something back to the community.

[sann0638]

Sure, that too