Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

[Darkson]

So I won't bother for NAF sanctioning.
And will probably drop the ARBBL completely - been looking at doing tournaments for other games anyway (mainly Dreadball), so this will probably be the kick I need. No point going to events if I'm going to concede a lot of games.

[Rolex]

Seeing someone taking a game in such a drastic way.... is disturbing.
There are no other words for it.

[lunchmoney]

Seeing someone taking a game in such a drastic way.... is disturbing.
There are no other words for it.

Not if the game is turning into something they dont like.
I play a lot of Scrabble, if a new version were released that I didnt like, I wouldn't play that new version, and if tournaments (yes, there are some very big Scrabble tournaments) were told they had to use the new version I wouldn't go to them. Completly understandable.

[Darkson]

Not much point in running an event if it doesn't get sanctioned (to many people care to much for the rankings), and if we get one crap roster forced on us just because it appeared in a crap PC version where does it end? Brets next year (seeing as they're in the new game)? What about when Cyanide decide to put in a Space Marine version (under "gentle" persuasion from GW)?
And no point in attending events if (at least in the short term) there's going to be a preponderance of teams I'm not going to play against.

It's not in the rule book, so it shouldn't be forced on players.

And if the reasoning is "it's widely played" why not any of the rosters from FUMBBL?

No sir, not for me.


And as lunchmoney said, no point in playing a game that's not to your liking. Haven't played 40K since 3rd edition, as every version of it since then has felt like a step backwards, and even then 3rd wasn't that great.

[Gaixo]

No, that's fair.

I think it shows the difficulty that the NAF faces, though. There are repeated cries to recreate the BBRC, either to fix perceived problems or to add something new and interesting to the game. But then the very possibility of a minor change is broached and it leads to boycott threats (or at least a threat, but presumably there would be more of the same when news went out to a broader audience).

[Darkson]

A BBRC-created Khorne team, that didn't have the handcuffs that was put on the Cyanide version is a completely different matter.
This is about a roster created in secret which contradicts the fluff, and didn't have proper play-testing.

[Gaixo]

I see. I largely agree with that sentiment.

The reason they were reconsidered, though, is that by this point they have been playtested. Probably on a larger scale than the last 3 teams were.

[Rolex]

A BBRC-created Khorne team, that didn't have the handcuffs that was put on the Cyanide version is a completely different matter.

I can agree with this.

This is about a roster created in secret which contradicts the fluff,

This is a matter of opinion. I disagree and I've been playing and collecting demons for the last 18 years (which doesn't mean your opinion is wrong, but that it's an opinion).

and didn't have proper play-testing.

It has now. It has now more playtesting that any team had before being relesed.

Said that I perfectly understood and agreed with the solution Naf used for them.
It's sound and logical.

But if they ask me if I would prefer them in or out, I say in.

The important thing is that Naf decides once and for all if a new team if any could be allowed in and under which circostances.
(2 years of testing, less then 50% win percentage, etc...)
Like it or not (I don't like it) the cyanide version is the living version of the game.
I prefer to deal with it, then to ignore it. Matter of preference.

[Darkson]

And who has the final say on the missing Stars? And tweaks? Playing without the chance of change isn't playtesting.

[Darkson]

Like it or not (I don't like it) the cyanide version is the living version of the game.
I prefer to deal with it, then to ignore it. Matter of preference.

And let's say they change Dwarfs so they have Guard instead of Block, either due to incompetence or interference from GW (admittedly extreme example, I admit, but an example of what could happen), are the NAF going to blindly follow them?

And when they call the game finished, and it only has 23 of the 24 rosters? Is the NAF going to just drop a roster? What about any Stars that they decide not to put in? And does that mean cards will be banned from NAF tournaments, as they're not in the "living version"?

Very dangerous precedent, in my opinion.

[Darkson]

And where has the playtesting been recorded? The Cyanide game? Hardly a good exmaple. A team that relies on Frenzy (and it's crowd-surfing ability) on a tool where the game can crash if you crowd-surf someone on a chainpush (for example). If I was playing Quorn (I'm not, as they didn't make it worth my while to pay for CE) I'd be loathe to do chain-surfs, hence it's not giving a true reflection of their game play.

[GalakStarscraper]

The team would look different if not for the handcuffs ... I definitely agree with that. I've had time to reconsider and I'm fine with the NAF staying with the CRP + the 3 teams that JJ emailed him that he was okay considering official. (which is the Icepelt rulebook that Cyanide is hosting). I think that is a good base for the NAF to stick to for now.

Tom

[Waldorf28]

I love watching Darkson give himself a hernia when the possible NAF sanctioning of the Khorne roster comes up. It amuses me.

[sann0638]

I love watching Darkson give himself a hernia when the possible NAF sanctioning of the Khorne roster comes up. It amuses me.

It doesn't amuse me, it makes me sad. If Cyanide had Slann and the NAF had Khorne, the world would be a happier place.

[Waldorf28]

I couldn't agree more Sann. It's all a bit distastefully sectarian.