NAF response to possible BB2 rule changes

[Fassbinder75]

Good decision. As much as hardcore online BBers like ourselves could deal with new teams or rules changes, they would be extremely offputting for new coaches coming to tournaments. And the continued existence of the tournament scene depends upon these guys. Alienate the new blood or cause a schism as existing coaches react against changes and our hobby dies.

Don’t we already have a schism, and isn’t the hobby already dying? This is the latest in a long line of NAF non-decisions as it continues to pander to its fraying, greying player base and shrinks from the role of global leadership. Change is the lifeblood of hobby games, not stasis so I dispute the ‘off-putting for new players’ statement.

Plasmoid is one man with dodgy house rules – and he has more influence on Blood Bowl than all of NAF, simply out of sheer desire. The future of Blood Bowl has Bretonnians and a modified Human roster which are not particularly enticing – but putting fingers in ears will surely see more of the like further down the track.

[frogboy]

Isn't this years World Cup the biggest event ever ? Thought the only schism is if you play FUMBBL or BloodBowl Computer game in you free time when your not playing propper BloodBowl, well thats the message i get from talking to people.

FUMBBLers be like "Your game is broken and their going to turn the servers off anyway"

BBers be like "Your pitch is sideways brah and the graphics suck"

later when playing the board game your both like

[rolo]

I don't (yet) see a schism between online and tabletop players - I play both, as do a great many others. This isn't any kind of scientific survey, only from personal experience I'd estimate that about 50% of tabletop players play online somehow (either Cyanide or FumBBL). I strongly suspect that there are a lot more online players than tabletop, although again I couldn't give you exact numbers.

But for now I don't see a schism because it feels like the same game. There are differences, of course. In my online league I sometimes play against Khorne teams, in my tabletop league I have Slann and Pact opponents. If I signed up for FumBBL I could play Stunty Leeg. Online I never have to worry about turn markers or keeping track of my apothecary. In tabletop I can look my opponent in the eyes when I announce that I'm gangfouling his wardancer, and watch him sweat. But overall, it's the same game. If you're good at the online game, you're good at tabletop.

I do worry a bit about the long-term health of the game though. Tabletop Blood Bowlers are definitely older on average than our counterparts in other fantasy tabletop games - I was at a tournament which had Warhammer, 40k, and Blood Bowl. I'd guess the 40k players seemed mostly about 15-25ish ... Warhammer maybe a few years older on average ... and the Blood Bowl players were almost all in their 30s or 40s. Not bad for a game which has been more or less left for dead by its manufacturer for a decade and a half, but worrying. And I think we're getting older faster than we're getting new players.

It looks like the NAF realizes this and is trying some things - the free registration for new coaches 16 and under at tournaments, for example. But I think that the best way to expand the Tabletop player base is to make it as easy as possible to make the leap from playing online to playing tabletop. There are some barriers - teams and fields are expensive (not much the NAF can do about that), many regions have no tabletop leagues, or are difficult to find. But I think that if tabletop rules start to stagnate while online rules evolve ... that could become a bigger and bigger obstacle until Online and Tabletop really do become completely different games.

So what I think the NAF needs is some kind of official process to approve (or deny!) rules and roster changes. Something like the NFL Rules committee. Right now, the process seems to be to publish a note on Facebook saying {whatever} will not be allowed. Or more accurately, tournament organizers can do what they like, maybe it'll be sanctioned, maybe not.
What if, instead, the NAF published a yearly booklet of all the alternate stuff which was approved? Eventually that would become some variant of the old LRB series, although it would apply only to NAF tournaments. This isn't my original idea, but it makes sense so I'm repeating it. Wouldn't that generally improve the tournament experience by promoting a more unified set of rules? Wouldn't that be a workable mechanism for adopting rules changes? And isn't that exactly the sort of thing that the NAF exists to provide?

[GalakStarscraper]

Let me see if I got that right...

The LRB 5.0 is outdated.
The CRP is the actual rulebook.
In addition to the CRP, valid rules are also:

• Chaos Pact
• Slann
• Underworld
• New Sill Animosity
• Journeymen rule change

So I print three pages, add that to CRP and I'm good to go again?

Regash,

The Icepelt Rulebook is the final approved version of Blood Bowl that was voted on by the BBRC. If you print that rulebook .. you have the rules that the NAF currently uses for tournaments.

[sann0638]

Galak is correct. Also, Animosity and Journeymen are in CRP. Icepelt is just CRP + the 3 teams.

The full rulebook is on the Cyanide forum (ironically, without Khorne but with Slann and Pact). It's a big file, mind!
http://www.bloodbowl-game.com/files/BB_LRB6.pdf

Mike

[Regash]

@Galak + sann0638:

Thanks, guys, for clearing that up.
Downloaded the file and printer is already running...

Now I only need to find other players...

[VoodooMike]

Correct in a way, but updated with new information. Without this statement, people would be asking how this affects NAF tournaments. This clarifies that. Is there a good place in the 20-page other thread to see what you would like the NAF to do?

I want the NAF to take a firm stance on NAF-sanctioned/supported tournaments in regard to rules and rosters. In essence, I want the NAF to say "in order to be a NAF event, it must conform to the rosters and ruleset that the NAF has specified".

The major utility of NAF sanctioning is that people can know what to expect just from the rubber stamp, and that NAF members can get their games played included in their NAF rankings. The stance that the NAF has chosen creates an environment in which neither of those things is necessarily true... NAF members can go to NAF-sanctioned events and be forced to play games that won't even be recognized by the NAF, and the NAF's rubber stamp doesn't really let people know what they're walking into.

As alternative rosters become more commonplace (assuming they do, though the past few years we've certainly seen an increase in their usage) the NAF's policy of simply shrinking away from things is likely to marginalize the NAF role in BB while increasing the long-term influence of others (such as Cyanide).

[MattDakka]

@Galak + sann0638:

Thanks, guys, for clearing that up.
Downloaded the file and printer is already running...

Now I only need to find other players...

You can find Blood Bowl players on FUMBBL.

[Shteve0]

@Galak + sann0638:

Thanks, guys, for clearing that up.
Downloaded the file and printer is already running...

Now I only need to find other players...

You can find Blood Bowl players on FUMBBL.

Hehe, given that thinks the cyanide community is "kompetitiv und egoistisch" I can't see him being too enamoured with fumbbl, can you?



Sorry, couldn't resist. No offence intended to Matt or anyone else, I think you're all wonderful people

[MattDakka]

@Galak + sann0638:

Thanks, guys, for clearing that up.
Downloaded the file and printer is already running...

Now I only need to find other players...

You can find Blood Bowl players on FUMBBL.

Ha, given that he called thinks the cyanide community is "kompetitiv und egoistisch" I can't see him being too enamoured with fumbbl, can you?

The point is that on FUMBBL there are some German players who play tabletop too.
Anyway, never say never.
If he wants quality he should expect to find competitive players, but on FUMBBL he can find casual players as well (especially in Ranked division).

[Shteve0]

Yes, sorry, I was posting tongue firmly in cheek.

[MattDakka]

No need to apologize, you didn't say anything offensive.

[sann0638]

interesting stuff.

Thanks VM.

[Darkson]

Looks like GW are giving them the latitude to change the rules as they see fit:
http://www.pcgamesn.com/blood-bowl-2/it ... blood-bowl

[Shteve0]

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.