Page 5 of 34

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 3:01 pm
by Gaixo
Waldorf28 wrote:It would be good to hear from a committee member, even if it was only to say they choose not to reconsider.
Wouldn't it? :)

The matter would be subject to a committee vote. As mentioned earlier in this thread, it's likely to happen in the near future.

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 5:34 pm
by spubbbba
I've always seen 2nd edition as the golden age of Bloodbowl fluff. The 3 NAF Sanctioned teams were all hearkening back to those days with Slann (now fat toad wizards in charge of Lizardmen armies in WHFB), Chaos Pact to represent the old Chaos All Stars and Underworld for the Underworld creepers.

Khorne deamons are certainly feasible in the fluff of Bloodbowl. The question is should they be added to the 24 teams currently allowed in NAF sanctioned tourneys over (as well as) any of the other fan made teams. And if khorne was added should we necessarily use Cyanide's version as opposed to creating a new roster. My biggest bugbear is that Bloodletters are weak and the Bloodthirster is far too big and powerful to be on the Bloodbowl pitch. Plus I just don't think the roster is very interesting, we already have 4 chaos teams so don't need another and Norse already have the frenzy shtick down.

One of the arguments for adding Khorne is that since Cyanide were sanctioned to add them to the game they are "Official", arguably more official than the 3 extra teams since they were forbidden from being added to the crp rulebook. But what happens if they are not added to BB2 and BB1 is wound down? Do we drop them and add Brettonians and any other team they come up with?

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 9:37 pm
by Chris
spubbbba wrote:One of the arguments for adding Khorne is that since Cyanide were sanctioned to add them to the game they are "Official", arguably more official than the 3 extra teams since they were forbidden from being added to the crp rulebook. But what happens if they are not added to BB2 and BB1 is wound down? Do we drop them and add Brettonians and any other team they come up with?
One one of those three were added by Cyanide as well, so I guess they beat Khorne? :)

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:58 pm
by Digger Goreman
What gw and cyanide do to BB is a joke at this point and has been for a while... as is khorne in anyone's CRaP....

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:08 am
by lunchmoney
Something that occurs to me with all this talk about cyanide being sanctioned, official, etc., and allowing the teams that they create. They also point users to the Icepelt rulebook on their website and this doesn't have their corn team, but does have Slann and Pact. (This same rule book also states Necromancers can Raise the Dead and get a zombie, not a skele like they think, and that Bombardiers can't use Jump Up then throw a bomb but cyanide think they can, or use Hail Mary Pass in a Blizzard but cyanide think they can, plus more I suspect but can't recall of the top of my head) so I wouldn't take anything cyanide does as gospel.

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:22 am
by sann0638
lunchmoney wrote: so I would take anything cyanide does as gospel.
Wouldn't, presumably?

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:35 am
by lunchmoney
sann0638 wrote:
lunchmoney wrote: so I would take anything cyanide does as gospel.
Wouldn't, presumably?
What he said.... :oops:

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:05 pm
by Valen
I dont think anyone is suggesting we should allow them because Cyanide said so (I know I certainly am not) I am basing my opinion on them being used in my table top league for a couple of years and they being quite balanced if not a bit shit lol

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:34 pm
by WeeManBiggins
Can this get stickied so we don't have to have countless threads starting about the same issue time and time again.

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 7:08 am
by sann0638
Tried to sticky, failed...

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:35 am
by lunchmoney
sann0638 wrote:Tried to sticky, failed...
Make me a mod, I'll a do it.

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:48 am
by sann0638
I'm a mod on this bit of the forum, but I think my mod powers don't extend to a) stickying or b) making others mods. I have managed to sticky things on other forums, so I know how.

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:58 pm
by plasmoid
Hi all,
tried to post up a Picture of my new Khorne team.
Anybody know what to do when the site comes up with a "It was not possible to determine the dimensions of the image." error message.
Cheers
Martin

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:21 pm
by plasmoid
Hi Darkson,
And now the reason for starting this thread becomes clear... :roll:
I get why you'd say that. But perhaps these are just separate issues?
I've been supporting the Khorne roster right from the beginning, and I've criticized the argumentation of the NAF ruling openly as well.
Heck, here is the Khorne team I've had painted up for TT:
Image

Cheers
Martin

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 1:32 pm
by Gaixo
Nice beastmen.