| Author |
Message |
absent |
|
Post subject: Should the NAF take over the BBRC and the anual rules reveiw
 Posted: May 10, 2005 - 03:17 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 119
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
absent |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: May 10, 2005 - 03:40 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 119
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: May 10, 2005 - 05:17 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
| I don't believe the NAF could take over even if they wanted to. So long as Jervis & GW want to retain control they will regardless of the desires of the NAF. Since BB is Jervis's firstborn and the biggest game in the specialist games range I don't see it being handed over soon. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
absent |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: May 10, 2005 - 05:19 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 119
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Odysseus |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: May 10, 2005 - 05:37 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 44
Status: Offline
|
|
I don't know if I like the idea of the NAF handling it. They have their hands full as it is. Plus the official rule book is already guided too much by tournaments. Tournies are house rules 90% of the time anyway and it's the leagues that need the attention from the official rules.
Whatever the solution I think getting rid of the RR is "about as smart as going to the toilet without taking down your trousers." - Rik Mayal |
_________________
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: May 10, 2005 - 06:07 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
absent wrote: not handed over, taken over, screw what gw says.
 Because there is no such thing as IP lawyers.
Regardless unless GW gave the responsibility to the NAF then you'd have competing rule sets and the NAF would lose. We'd also lose any good will from dealing with GW and assisting them with tournaments.
BTW I know pretty much what Jervis said (unless it differred wildly from an internal memo I saw). There will still be rules reviews, its just that they won't change the rules every year but restrict themselves to clarifications and typos. Also there is still work to be done on new rules and teams. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: May 10, 2005 - 06:17 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 408
|
|
| Clearly we read different things. JJ is holding your scrote Ian and it looks like you're enjoying it. |
_________________
Snew
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
absent |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: May 10, 2005 - 06:18 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 119
Status: Offline
|
|
well, the post at bloodbowl.com pretty much said you guys can never fix a problem with the rules, as a BBRC member if you say this is acceptable i just cannot beleive it. The BBRC is for fixing problems, JJ totally destroyed your position, if i was in your position i'd be much the opposite of the LOL smiley.
If we all "houserule" the rules a certain way, that is legal, even publishing non official versions of the rules, that say non official, is legal afaik. |
_________________
absents tournament history
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Hoshi_Komi |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: May 10, 2005 - 06:31 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 23, 2003
United States of America
Posts: 550
Location: United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
| everyone has their own vision of bloodbowl. leagues already use house-rules. I doubt you'd be able to pull it off. As much as we'd like to think that we all play the same rules...we all have our little tweaks. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
absent |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: May 10, 2005 - 06:34 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 119
Status: Offline
|
|
we might all have our own tweaks, but bb is better for the rules reveiw, and thats a fact, keep 6 of 7 bbrc members and it still feels pretty official  |
_________________
absents tournament history
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: May 10, 2005 - 06:34 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by jervis
*However*, from now on the rules review will not change any exisiting game rules. Instead rules changes would only take place when we published a new edition of the game/handbook (ie, LRB 4.0 will be 'locked' until we publish a new edition of BB).
The intention is that there will be new editions of the rules every 4 years or so. So you get typos/clarifications every year or two years and then occassionally new editions when there are enough accumulated changes. This isn't a complete shutdown like you seem to believe.
Snots, I thought all blokes loved having their scrots held  Anyway, I'm happily married to mrs doubleskulls thank you very much and she might get jealous if I let Jervis have my doubleballs |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
absent |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: May 10, 2005 - 06:39 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 119
Status: Offline
|
|
| gw will never support bloodbowl enough to release a new printed edition once every 4 years, this is a fairy tale that jervis wrote to you all. |
_________________
absents tournament history
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: May 10, 2005 - 07:46 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
I'd agree that its unlikely GW will print a rulebook every 4 years, but we can always do online rule books (just like the LRB...).
Really you are getting yourself very wound up about what is a relatively small change of direction. Jervis is just bad at communicating his ideas and tends to paint a very black & white picture. When you actually ask him what that means in practice you can see what a little difference this makes.
Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of people really don't like having significant alterations to the rules every year. I'm one of the them. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
absent |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: May 10, 2005 - 07:58 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 08, 2004
Posts: 119
Status: Offline
|
|
| i'm not worked up, i'm just drumming up support for what i beleive a majority of people agree with, and that is an annual or biannual rules reveiw with 5 out of 7 bbrc agreeing to a change (and no jj veto ) |
_________________
absents tournament history
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
skummy |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: May 10, 2005 - 08:26 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 506
Status: Offline
|
|
| Yeah, I'd be up for an alternate ruleset that actually focuses on long term leage balance. LRB with DP and the Ogres changes pretty well do it for me. Anyone else got something they can think of? |
_________________
The only thing to do with good advice is pass it on. It is never any use to oneself.
-Oscar Wilde
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
