How could a new BBRC work?

[rolo]

You can't make a pizza without shredding some cheese ... ?

Looking forward to the survey. I suggest sending a link out in the next NAF mass email.

From another thread:

and the stock of dice available are getting close to empty.

Given the thousands that are sitting in my storage, I can categorically say this is wildly inaccurate.

"The first 1000 coaches to respond to the survey get a free set of dice!!"

Achieve the highest participation rate of any NAF survey, and help clean out Lycos' bathroom

[Darkson]

Darkson, you should have said you didn't like omelettes before we started breaking all these eggs!

And at what point did you, Dode or anyone else ask or poll the BB community to see if we wanted yoto break the eggs for omelettes? It feels like you just assumed we would and went ahead and did it.

Should have been a poll first.

[Shteve0]

Dode asked dode. With a positive response of 1/1 there was a 91.73% confidence rate in the response, and therefore your opinion is statistically invalid.

Just kidding. I actually very much respect dode's input, and your own. I'll raise it at the meeting on Sunday.

[dode74]

With a Spanish omelette?

I don't think anyone particularly cares so long as someone decides what flavour the omelette is

[Milo]

Ooh, I just found the poll on the NAF forums about the need for a new BBRC: http://member.thenaf.net/index.php?name ... pic&t=6487

Seems the NAF membership feels there may be a need, too (79 of 128 votes yes). Or is that just the NAF membership which bothers to look at the forum and is therefore not representative of all the other members who are clearly happy and should therefore be assumed to be "no" votes?

Make that 80 of 129. I'll vote yes as well, but currently can't because my membership expired and I'm waiting for a tournament a week from Saturday to renew.

[VoodooMike]

Meanwhile, there is a big survey coming, if you like answering questions

I like answers to questions, but unless you've completely reworked that survey since the last time I saw it, it won't qualify to answer much of anything....

[Pakulkan]

Shteve0 - What evidence would be sufficient? I think the evidence for me is that the rules are currently without ownership. I'm not even suggesting that any new BBRC should make changes to the rules, but at least if there is one then rules issues can be properly addressed and changes can be assessed for testing. As it stands there is merely stagnation, and that's not good for anyone. A BBRC simply existing also acts as a safety-net for us being "end-timed".

Totally agree.

Not only End-timed, but in most other SG there are at least a number of fan made rulesets and not always the best ballanced is clear, and this is just a subproduct of a certain time without official or effective rule ownership. Playing Battlefleet Gothic you could use Original rules, Compendium 2010 (last official input), Battlefleet Gothic: Revised (which is quite popular but non-official), etc. And no any end-times event was necessary, just time-based entropy.

The point from one side I guess is that a fixed ruleset does not need any maintenance if it is robust enough; the point on the other side is that active unkeep is necessary to prevent an eventual drift on rules application. Honestly, I would not know who is right, but prefer to have a "just in case" backup plan ready instead of face the problem (if appears) too late.

Difference is that there is no Specialist Game that already have what Bloodbowl does, a ruling entity that is broadly accepted by a high number of active players and that permeates to other, not so active ones. I would bet any NAF/FUMBBL/BBRC2 sancioned document or addenda will be broadly accepted by Bloodbowl community. NAF (as it rules tournament circuit, for example) is not merely another fan forum.

[straume]

It's no good throwing around solutions when we don't know what problem we're trying to solve in the first place.

The problem we are trying to solve is simple: What are we to do with the house rules Cyanide and BB2 are throwing at us?

We can of course do nothing, which is a choice. I don`t think it is very hard to define the project, though, as it can be summed up in a single simple question.

[Regash]

I'm a bit torn on this...

On one hand, I really hate Cyanide for changing rules without even asking themselves id this is a good idea.
Like the rules or not, there are some official rules so f**king stay with them, dammit!

On the other hand, I really hate to see the community being split in two just because Cyanide is not playing by the official rules.
Should we really let this happen?
The boardgamers with one set of rules, the PC-gamers with another and those who play both, getting used to different rules?
I don't think so.

But still, I'd refuse to accept Cyanide as the new BBRC just because GW gives a sh*t!

[Shteve0]

Guys, a little perspective.

Pako mate, for starters the NAF is not a ruling body, it's an association of players.

Cyanide appears to have been given the remit, from GW, to make some changes to the rules in their next game, but we haven't had which rules confirmed or to what extent. When we do, we will have more information on which to base any actions that are deemed necessary. Obviously I agree it would be substantially better if Cyanide were considering the impact of those changes on tabletop gaming, and the difficulty we face in the event of changes to existing rules; at the moment that doesn't appear to be a huge priority for them, but we're working on it.

Talk of a split community at this point is premature, we don't know how BB2 will be received or how it differs from CRP - it isn't out yet. Straume, I think your summary is just about the best framing of the question I've seen so far (although it's a little loaded if reports that GW has given cyanide the authority to amend official rules are true). Forming a BBRC is only one of several potential responses to that question, and almost certainly the one that best guarantees a split in the community.

[dode74]

the authority to amend official rules

What does that mean? What are the official rules?

almost certainly the one that best guarantees a split in the community.

Well that rather depends on a large number of variables. And to think you accused straume of loading his statement

[Shteve0]

Settle down mate. I didn't "accuse" straume of loading the question, I said it was possibly loaded. There's a difference of intent there.

And is what I said unreasonable? If our reaction to Cyanide's rules is to unilaterally form an independent opposing rules body, that's absolutely going to trigger a split unless cyanide recognises its authority too (yeah, right).

[dode74]

Jokey statement, mate, wasn't intended to be inflammatory so sorry if it was taken that way. The smiley was intended to take out the venom - seems it didn't work.

The BBRC doesn't have to be opposing Cyanide. It can be a conduit.

You've not told me what the "official rules" are which Cyanide may have been given authority to amend.

[Shteve0]

All good mate.

Official rules - don't know. If a new amended CRP is packaged with BB2 with GW's consent, we need to consider if that represents the new official. Failing that, CRP is the official rules that we have right now.

[harvestmouse]

I'm not sure there's a winner to this. It's like duffing up Obiwan, you'll regret it eventually.

As I see it there would be 3 camps:

1. I want to stay official camp.
2. I want to play the same as everybody (i.e. everybody follow Cyanide as they're not going to follow or stay official).
3. I only want to play new added rules that are reviewed and will make the game better.

I think there'd only be a point to a BBRC if you were going to take each individual rule change and review it; camp 3. Rubber stamping or flat out refusing to change to anything that isn't official doesn't need a BBRC.

As hobbyists I'm not sure we can expect anybody to step forward and take this on.

Of course this all becomes void if Cyanide actually is given the reigns by GW and produce official rules. That would be potentially bad news for certain groups playing the game.