How could a new BBRC work?

[Pakulkan]

Just two comments:

1- Surely, for many players NAF is not ruling anything, but still is the biggest group of tabletop players in the world, so far if they endorse any change, it would have more options to become "effectively official" than an alternative ruleset coming from, for example bloodbowlforo.org (spanish forum).

It happened with Battlefleet Gothic Review, Yakromunda, Coreheim, and the many Warhammer projects arising. No matter how good are your ideas, if there is not the force of the numbers behind you (noting that there will no longer be any new official endorsement which is the ideal situation) the new changes will not permeate the community.

2- I am not afraid of Cyanide particularly, I am afraid of pure entropy caused by time with no one taking care of ruleset health. As stated many times, it happened with any single Specialist Game without something similar to BBRC, and now it is happening with BB.

I am fine with you, players arguing for stable endorsement of last official ruleset, but honestly, if you could not look around and see what happens with a game without an active care of ruling update, we all deserve what probably is going to happen.

NAF mostly maintained LRB6.0 health (remember, it is no longer available in GW website; remember, Extra teams are not included in the last Official ruleset coming from GW) so far I can't figure out why the NAF is not simply taking care of the game along with fumbbl.

BTW, it would be interesting to know if all the people that would stay in untouched LRB6.0 are using Chaos Pact, Slann and/or Underworld because, effectively, they were not endorsed by GW...

[dode74]

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.

Seems like you do know. So it basically comes down to whether cyanide produce a new pdf?

Rubber stamping or flat out refusing to change to anything that isn't official doesn't need a BBRC.

But it does need a decision. By someone. Preferably someone empowered to make such a decision. Maybe some sort of committee empowered to decide which or whether the cyanide rules are adopted. I wonder what we could call such a committee which decides what the rules of blood bowl will be...

[Pakulkan]

Rubber stamping or flat out refusing to change to anything that isn't official doesn't need a BBRC.

But it does need a decision. By someone. Preferably someone empowered to make such a decision. Maybe some sort of committee empowered to decide which or whether the cyanide rules are adopted. I wonder what we could call such a committee which decides what the rules of blood bowl will be...

For me, what is the most terrifying idea is a number of players simply thinking that BB is perfect and shouldn't change. What if Cyanide proposes a change which is particularly amusing, balancing the game or summing up somenthing unexpected? There is no place to consider new ideas?

With this kind of position, we never tried LRB 6.0, nor 5.0, nor 3ed. not even 2nd edition. Come on guys... The same comitee that created the LRB 6.0 that you think is untouchable, basically said that there were a number of items to test and consider to change in a putative 7.0 version!

[straume]

For me, what is the most terrifying idea is a number of players simply thinking that BB is perfect and shouldn't change.

Agreed. And whilst I am certainly in the conservative camp, some changes wouldn`t be a disaster.

To be spesific: We know (almost for certain) that the Human Catcher gets +AV. I think most people would agree that the Human Catcher neeeds a slight buff. And then of course the opinion differs on how.

A simple job for a new BBRC would be to rubber stamp any changes made my Cyanide.

Human catcher +AV? Okay, not a disaster. Approved. And the Rule Book becomes Living again. I don`t think anyone would argue against the rules that would then be adopted by BB2, NAF and Fumbbl.

Bret roster? Approved.

Something silly (fluffwise) or possibly game breaking (rulewise) that we will find in BB2? (I am sure we can find an actual example once the game launches): No thanks.

This is what we need from BBRC.

[Regash]

What if Cyanide proposes a change which is particularly amusing, balancing the game or summing up somenthing unexpected?

Then they created some nice house rules.
It's still not official. Or do you want to see any house rule someone developed thats been picked up by Cyanide become official instantly?
So far, all I know is that they picked up some house rules and dropped the skill Pass Block.

For me, GW would still have to make these rules official.
You will NEVER see me play those on TT.
And I'm seriously thinking about NOT buying BB2.

I have to admit, not only because of the different rules but also for their sales strategy.
Day one DLC is pure cheekiness. And to sell a game at full price and then slice off some content for further rip-off?
They've done that to me with BB1, I'm not gonna let them do it a second time.

[dode74]

GW would still have to make these rules official.

Assuming cyanide make these changes, what exactly would be required beyond cyanide having licence to do so from gw for them to be official?

[Regash]

You seem to be mistaking two different things.

Cyanide has a license to produce a computer game.
They do not own the Blood Bowl IP.
That is, why you see the GW-Logo appear in the game.

Technically, we're talking about two different things: A computer game and a boardgame.

Otherwise, all the changes made to the rules for producing Total War: Warhammer would change the rules for the TT also, wouldn't they?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against changes.
I am against having two differing rule sets, splitting the people playing the game.

[Pakulkan]

There are people still playing 3ed. BloodBowl games. People that don't know anything about BBRC, NAF, fumbbl or whatever.

You will always have people playing a different ruleset. Question is who leads the community, and if without leadership we would have increasing ruling debate or not.

Any newbie or ancient player could search Bloodbowl in the internet and found NAF, such a bunch of players driving in the same direction, and probably sum up to their decissions. Unfortunately, I couldn't do this once I joined Battleflet Gothic community last year, and I am still testing and trying to decide which ruleset I would use.

This is what I've seen in BFG and Mordheim (SG I still play) and because of that I am afraid what could happen if no one takes care of LRB.

Experienced-based paranoid? Maybe, but I don't want to discover if it is a general law or not, lets turn on a BBRC and avoid this possibility.

[dode74]

It rather depends on whether, as ShteveO has suggested, GW has given Cyanide permission to change the official rules.

I don't think conflating a pc version of the board game with a pc game based on a board game ip (TW or DoW) is particularly useful as an analogy. TW/DoW pay very differently to the board game versions; BB does not.

[straume]

You seem to be mistaking two different things.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against changes.
I am against having two differing rule sets, splitting the people playing the game.

But GW is really unlikely to say or do anything about the rules, wouldn`t you agree?

And with that premise: Should we accept differing rulesets as Cyanidie troddle on with their House Rules that many (especially new players) will assume to be official?

The choice is then: 1) Do nothing and play with the rules we have, and be semi-positive to any new rosters at individual tournaments (as is NAF practice today with for instance Khorne).

Or should we:
2) Try and face the proposed changes and make the rulebook living again, through a new body of authority that is likely to be widely accepted (with some mandatory moaning); namely BBRC.

The "Do nothing"-alternative is really not horrible, but personally I would prefer a more proactive approach.

[Regash]

Like I said:
You will never see me play the Cyanide rules on a board unless they are made official.
And I'm not likely to buy BB2 anyway.

So yes, I think sticking to the last version of the LRB is a good idea.
GW seems to have abandoned BB, so official rule changes aren't likely.
The fact that GW withdrew the block dice license from NAF is telling a strong story, don't you think?

In fact, I never liked the NAF-approach to the players.
They don't, in my opinion, are for all the players. They actually seem to have a very GW-like approach.
What does a player like me, who doesn't attend tournaments, get from the NAF?
You tell me because I don't have any idea.
So having them take care of the rules don't seem like a good idea to me either.

But in the end, consider me one well behaved player to download the next LRB-version and play after those rules.
And I sure don't care who made them unless they are official.
Rules I can rely on to be accepted by the community when I play strangers.
And I don't care about these few players who sit at home with their original rulebook, you always have players like them.
A couple of people playing WHFB with 3rd ed. rules don't make the 6th ed. rules obsolete.

[koadah]

You will never see me play the Cyanide rules on a board unless they are made official.

You'll probably never see me play vanilla CRP on a board.

What does official mean anyway? Do pact, slann and underworld count as official?

[Pakulkan]

Do pact, slann and underworld count as official?

Following "there is no necessity for a BBRC, just follow last GW official rules" arguments, they are not as never were officially endorsed by GW.

[Vanguard]

You will never see me play the Cyanide rules on a board unless they are made official.
...
And I sure don't care who made them unless they are official.

But you do care, and that's the point. You have your own notion of what constitutes official and I think you'd require some kind of GW seal of approval. Others would see a Cyanide rulebook as official. Yet others would take a NAF rulebook. Even simple concepts like 'official' are hard to pin down.

[Regash]

The BBRC were officially formed by GW, right?
Otherwise GW couldn't have pulled the plug on the BBRC, right?
As members of the BBRC state thath Pact, Slann and Underworld were approved by the BBRC, they are official.
(Although I have to admit I have no love for either of them.)

Yep, a GW seal of approval means official for me.
If GW would make the Cyanide rules the official rules, I'd live with that.

As long as the rights for Blood Bowl are with GW, they decide whats official and whats not.

How would you like the idea of inventing a boadgame and then finding out someone else gives out "official" rule changes without you even knowing?!?